Analysis of Interference and Performance in Heterogeneously Deployed LTE systems

MATTIAS BERGSTROM

Master of Science Thesis Stockholm, Sweden 2010

Analysis of Interference and Performance in Heterogeneously Deployed LTE systems

MATTIAS BERGSTROM

Master of Science Thesis performed at Wireless Access Networks, Ericsson Research September 2010

Supervisor: Examiner:

Konstantinos Dimou Ben Slimane

KTH School of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Department of Communication Systems (CoS) CoS/RCS 2006-TRITA-ICT-EX-2011:6 c Mattias Bergstr om, September 2010 Tryck: Universitetsservice AB

Abstract
Heterogeneous network deployment has been advocated as a mean to enhance the performance of cellular networks, but at the same time heterogeneous deployments give rise to new interference scenarios which are not seen in homogeneous deployments. This report includes ve studies pertaining heterogeneous network deployments which is based on simulations of LTE in high detail on the lower layer protocol stack. In the rst study it is investigated if results from simulated systems with ideal deployments can be generalized to realistic low power node deployments, which is seen to be the case. Three heterogeneous network congurations, specied by 3GPP, were compared to a macro-only system. It is observed that the gain from low power nodes is strongly connected to the distribution of UEs. If the UE distribution is uniform the UE throughput gain is below 100 % while if the UEs are highly clustered a UE throughput gain of 400 % is achieved. The conguration with uniform UE distribution was further analyzed and it was seen that in a low load system the average UE throughput gain from low power nodes is below 20 %. In a low loaded system with uniform UE distribution adding low power nodes is not a good way of enhancing the system performance. A study investigating the gain of low power node range extension showed that SINR problems arise if the range of the low power nodes is extended, however the system as a whole gets increased throughput. The same applies for UE throughput. The main reasons are macro layer ooading & reduced interference created by the macro layer. It is showed that if more low power nodes are added the UE throughput gain per low power node increases. It is also showed that a system with two range extended low power nodes outperforms a system with four low power nodes without range extension. Inter-low power node interference is seen not to be a problem in the simulated system congurations.

iii

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Konstantinos Dimou, for his valuable input, guidance and commitment through this project. Konstantinos has always been supportive and found time for discussions around the project. I am thankful to Johan Lundsj o, manager at RAN Architecture & Protocols, for giving me the opportunity to do this project here in Ericsson. I would also like to thank my examiner, Ben Slimane, my colleagues; Peter Moberg, Gunnar Mildh, Michael Eriksson and Robert Baldemair for their input and discussions around the topic of this project and Jessica Ostergaard for reminding me to go home after too long days in the oce.

Contents
1 Introduction 1.1 The wireless system . . . 1.1.1 First generation . . 1.1.2 Second generation 1.1.3 Third generation . 1.1.4 Fourth generation 1.2 Problem statement . . . . 1.3 Thesis outline . . . . . . . 2 What is interference? 2.1 Frequency hopping . . . 2.2 Spatial multiplexing . . 2.3 Beam forming . . . . . . 2.4 Interference cancellation 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 5 6 6 7 8 11 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 21

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

3 Fourth Generation cellular networks 3.1 Long Term Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 OFDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 Spectrum exibility . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.3 Multiple antenna technology . . . . . . . 3.1.4 Hybrid ARQ with soft combining . . . . . 3.2 LTE-Advanced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Carrier aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Higher order MIMO . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 Coordinated Multi-Point transmission and 3.2.4 Heterogeneous network deployment . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . reception . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

4 New interference scenarios in Heterogeneous Networks 4.1 Downlink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Low power eNB interference to macro UE . . . . . 4.1.2 Macro eNB interference to low power node UE . . 4.2 Uplink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Macro UE interference to low power eNB . . . . . 4.2.2 Low power node UE interference to macro eNB . . 4.3 Crucial factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Cell association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 P0 oset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

viii 5 Impact of misplacement of low power nodes 5.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Simulation details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Performance Measurements . . . . . . 5.2.2 Congurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3 System parameters . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.4 Trac model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Performance overview . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 User distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3 Interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.4 SINR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.5 Cell Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.6 UE Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Analysis of 3GPP system congurations 6.1 Simulation details . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1 Congurations . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.2 System parameters . . . . . . . . 6.1.3 Trac model . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.4 User distribution . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Uplink results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Performance overview . . . . . . 6.2.2 Cell throughput . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3 Interference . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.4 SINR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.5 UE Throughput . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Downlink results . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1 Performance overview . . . . . . 6.3.2 Cell throughput . . . . . . . . . 6.3.3 SINR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.4 UE Throughput . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Analysis of 3GPP system congurations 7.1 Simulation details . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.1 Congurations . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.2 System parameters . . . . . . . . 7.1.3 Trac model . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.4 User distribution . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1 SINR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2 Cell throughput . . . . . . . . . 7.2.3 UE Throughput . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contents 23 23 23 23 25 25 26 27 27 27 28 30 32 35 37 41 41 41 42 42 42 43 44 44 48 49 52 53 54 54 55 59 60 61 63 63 63 63 63 64 64 64 65 67 69

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Low load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

Contents 8 Analysis of 3GPP system congurations 8.1 Simulation details . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.1 Congurations . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.2 System parameters . . . . . . . . 8.1.3 Trac model . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1.4 User distribution . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.1 Cell Throughput . . . . . . . . . 8.2.2 Interference . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.3 SINR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.4 UE Throughput . . . . . . . . . 8.2.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Range extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix 71 71 71 71 71 72 72 72 72 76 81 89 89

. . . . . . . . . . . .

9 Analysis of 3GPP system congurations - Multiple low power nodes 9.1 Simulation details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.1 Congurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.2 System parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.3 Trac model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.4 User distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.1 Cell Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.2 Interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.3 SINR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.4 UE Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Conclusions, proposal and future work 10.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.1 Existing ICIC schemes . . . . . 10.2.2 Fractional Frequency Reuse . . 10.2.3 Proposed scheme . . . . . . . . 10.3 Proposed further studies . . . . . . . . 10.4 Alternative technology . . . . . . . . . Bibliography

91 91 91 92 92 92 92 92 93 95 97 99 99

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

103 103 105 105 105 108 110 111 113

List of Tables
3.1 3.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 Cell spectral eciency requirements in IMT-Advanced. . . . . . . Cell edge user spectral eciency requirements in IMT-Advanced. System parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uplink throughput. The numbers in the parentheses are the gains compared to the reference case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage of UEs connected to the low power nodes. . . . . . . Macro PRB utilization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3GPP heterogeneous network deployment congurations. . . . . User distribution and macro PRB utilization. . . . . . . . . . . . FTP upload time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uplink throughput. The numbers in the parentheses are the gains compared to the reference case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FTP download time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Downlink throughput. The numbers in the parentheses are the gains compared to the reference case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gains from adding low power nodes in the dierent congurations compared to the reference case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . User distribution between macro eNB and low power macro PRB utilization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average uplink SINR per UE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average downlink SINR per UE. . . . . . . . . . . . Average uplink cell throughput per cell. . . . . . . . Average downlink cell throughput per cell. . . . . . . Average uplink UE throughput per UE. . . . . . . . Average downlink UE throughput per UE. . . . . . . nodes and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12 26 27 29 29 41 43 44 45 54 55 61

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 8.1 8.2 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4

64 65 65 67 68 68 69 74 89

User distributions and macro PRB utilization. . . . . . . . . . . . Gains from 8 dB range extension for the dierent congurations.

User distributions and macro PRB utilization. . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Spectral eciency vs. number of low power nodes per macro cell area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 UE throughput gain and UE throughput gain per low power node. Measured on the ftieth percentile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Gains from dierent number of low power nodes without and with 8 dB range extension compared to the reference case. . . . . . . . 100 xi

List of Figures
2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 Interference between two terminals TA and TB . . . . . . . . . . . Example of beam forming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Representation of bandwidth resources Examples of carrier aggregation. . . . Example of beam forming. . . . . . . . Joint processing of signals. . . . . . . . in LTE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 19 20 21 28 30 31 32 33 33 34 35 35 36 37 37 38

Heterogeneous deployment example. . . . . . . . . . . . . Interference from low power eNB to macro UE. . . . . . . Interference from macro eNB to low power node UE. . . . Interference from macro UE to low power eNB. . . . . . . Interference from low power node UE to macro eNB. . . . Illustration of RSRP and path loss based cell association.

Distribution of UEs between macro and low power nodes. . . . . Interference received by base stations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CDF - average low power node uplink UE SINR. . . . . . . . . . CDF - average macro uplink UE SINR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CDF - average uplink UE SINR including all UEs. . . . . . . . . Average uplink cell throughput per cell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dierent low power node cell sizes depending on distance to macro node. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CDF - average uplink low power node cell throughput. . . . . . . CDF - average uplink macro cell throughput. . . . . . . . . . . . CDF - average uplink macro cell area throughput. . . . . . . . . CDF - average uplink low power node UE throughput. . . . . . . CDF - average uplink low power node UE throughput. . . . . . . CDF - average uplink UE throughput including all UEs. . . . . . User distribution between macro eNB and low power nodes in conguration 1, 4a and 4b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average uplink cell throughput per cell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Path loss from one macro eNB and two low power nodes. The cell borders are marked with vertical lines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . CDF - average uplink low power node cell throughput. . . . . . . CDF - average uplink macro cell throughput. . . . . . . . . . . . CDF - average uplink macro cell area throughput. . . . . . . . . Time average uplink interference per PRB per cell. . . . . . . . . xiii

42 45 46 47 47 48 48

xiv 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 6.19 6.20 6.21 6.22 6.23 6.24 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10 8.11 8.12 8.13 8.14 8.15 8.16 8.17 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5

List of Figures CDF - average low power node uplink UE SINR. . . . . . . CDF - average macro uplink UE SINR. . . . . . . . . . . . CDF - distance from macro eNBs to their macro UEs. . . . CDF - average uplink UE SINR including all UEs. . . . . . CDF - average uplink low power node UE throughput. . . . CDF - average uplink macro UE throughput. . . . . . . . . CDF - average uplink UE throughput including all UEs. . . Average cell throughput. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CDF - average downlink low power node cell throughput. . CDF - average downlink macro cell throughput. . . . . . . . CDF - average downlink macro cell area throughput. . . . . CDF - average low power node downlink UE SINR. . . . . . CDF - average macro downlink UE SINR. . . . . . . . . . . CDF - average downlink UE SINR including all UEs. . . . . CDF - average downlink low power node UE throughput. . CDF - average downlink macro UE throughput. . . . . . . . CDF - average downlink UE throughput including all UEs. Average Average Average Average Average Average uplink SINR per UE. . . . . . . . downlink SINR per UE. . . . . . uplink cell throughput per cell. . downlink cell throughput per cell. uplink UE throughput per UE. . downlink UE throughput per UE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 50 51 51 52 53 53 55 56 56 57 57 58 59 60 60 61 65 66 66 67 68 69

User distribution between macro eNB and low power nodes in conguration 1, 4a and 4b with and without 8 dB range extension. Average cell throughput per cell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Time average uplink interference per PRB per cell. . . . . . . . . Average SINR per UE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CDF - average low power node UE SINR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Path loss from macro eNB and macro UE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uplink interference from macro layer to low power node layer. . . Downlink interference from macro layer to low power node layer. CDF - average macro UE SINR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CDF - average UE SINR including all UEs. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 percentile SINR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CDF - average low power node UE throughput. . . . . . . . . . . CDF - average macro UE throughput. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CDF - average UE throughput including all UEs. . . . . . . . . . Example of a system map for conguration 4a. . . . . . . . . . . Legend to gure 8.15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 percentile UE throughput. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average cell throughput per cell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spectral eciency vs. number of low power nodes per macro area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Time average uplink interference per PRB per cell. . . . . . Average SINR per UE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CDF - average low power node UE SINR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . cell . . . . . . . . . . . .

72 73 75 77 78 79 79 79 80 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 88 93 94 94 96 96

List of Figures 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 CDF CDF CDF CDF average average average average macro UE SINR. . . . . . . . . . low power node UE throughput. . macro UE throughput. . . . . . . UE throughput including all UEs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xv 97 98 98 99 106 107 107 108 109 110 111

Performance evaluation of ICIC schemes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Static reuse ICIC scheme. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fractional Frequency Reuse ICIC scheme. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Allocation order based ICIC scheme. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FFR scheme protecting UEs in range extended region of OA low power node cells. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6 FFR scheme protecting UEs in range extended region of CSG low power node cells. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7 Reception of transmission grant and downlink data transmission simultaneously. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

List of Abbreviations
AMPS CA CB CoMP CS CSG CSG eNB FDD FDMA FFR HARQ HeNB HII ICIC ITU JP JT LTE LTE-Advanced MIMO NAT NMT OA Advanced Mobile Phone System Carrier Aggregation Coordinated Beam Forming Coordinated Multipoint transmission and reception Coordinated Scheduling Closed Subscriber Group Closed Subscriber Group E-UTRAN Node B Frequency-Division Duplexing Frequency-Division Multiple Access Fractional Frequency Reuse Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Home E-UTRAN Node B High Interference Indication Inter-cell Interference Coordination International Telecommunication Union Joint Processing Joint Transmission Long Term Evolution Long Term Evolution-Advanced Multiple-Input-Multiple-Output Network Address Translation Nordic Mobile Telephone Open Access xvii

xviii OFDM OI PRB QAM QPSK RE RNTP RSRP SIC SINR TDD TDMA TTI UE UMTS WCDMA

List of Figures Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing Overload Indication Physical Resource Block Quadrature Amplitude Modulation Quadrature Phase-Shift Keying Range extension Relative Narrowband Downlink TX Power Reference Signal Received Power Successive Interference Cancellation Signal-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratio Time-Division Duplexing Time-Division Multiple Access Transmission Time Interval User Equipment Universal Mobile Telecommunications System Wideband Code-Division Multiple Access

Chapter 1

Introduction
1.1 The wireless system

The usage of cellular systems has been growing since the systems got deployed in the 1980s. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) estimated 4.6 billion mobile subscriptions globally in 2009. In recent years the cellular systems have also started to be used for data trac and in 2008 the number of mobile broadband subscriptions overtook the number of xed broadband subscriptions. What we want to achieve with a cellular system is to oer connections to the users anywhere at any time. The user demands of the cellular systems have also increased as the years have passed and new network architecture and technologies are needed. After the rst generation of cellular system was introduced in the 1980s a new generation has come about around once a decade. The fourth generation cellular systems is planned to be deployed in 2011.

1.1.1

First generation

The rst generation of cellular systems, 1G, was introduced in the 1980s and was targeting voice communication. 1G systems are analogue where the users are separated in the frequency domain, so called Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA). NMT and AMPS are examples of 1G systems.

1.1.2

Second generation

The second generation of cellular systems, 2G, was digital. The digitalization of the system made it possible to send data trac, enabling low rate data services such as SMS. The 2G systems also had higher capacities than the preceding analogue system because of the digitalization. The trac could be compressed and multiplexed also in time, so called Time division Multiple Access (TDMA). This gave more degrees of freedom which increased the capacity because of higher utilization of the bandwidth. Compared to 1G systems, where a channel was assigned a terminal even during times when it did not transmit, the second generation technologies could let several users transmit in parallel through time. GSM is the most widespread 2G system. 1

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1.3

Third generation

In the third generation cellular systems, 3G, the throughput was further increased which made services such as video calls possible. One of the most used 3G technologies is Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) which uses Wideband Code-Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) to separate the users. WCDMA uses near-orthogonal codes to spread the terminals signals over a wider bandwidth making their signals look like Gaussian noise to each other. Since the terminals all use the same bandwidth, in which their signals appears as noise to each other, adding a terminal eectively adds noise. A new terminal can be added to the system as long as the noise is not exceeding a critical level. WCDMA is therefore said to have a soft terminal limit compared to a hard terminal limit as in the case with TDMA or FDMA where there is a xed number of channels.

1.1.4

Fourth generation

For the fourth generation of cellular systems, 4G, the requirements are further increased and will have peak data rates of 100 Mbps for downlink and 50 Mbps in uplink. One promising technology to meet the 4G-standard is Long Term Evolution-Advanced (LTE-Advanced). LTE-Advanced is an evolution of a technology named LTE which has not fully met the requirements to be called a fourth generation technology. The requirements are found in [1]. Key technologies in LTE-Advanced that are making it possible to meet the requirements are Carrier Aggregation, multiple antennas, heterogeneous deployment and coordinated transmissions between dierent base stations. LTE and LTE-Advanced are described in more detail in section 3.1 and 3.2 respectively.

1.2

Problem statement

The bandwidth used in radio communication is a scarce commodity and as the demands on the networks increase there is a need to make more ecient use of the bandwidth. To enhance the performance of cellular networks the following deployment approaches have been suggested; denser macro base station deployment, more advanced macro base stations and heterogeneous deployments. Macro base stations are expensive and might take long time to deploy. Heterogeneous deployments is an alternative in which lower power base stations are deployed where there are clusters of users with high trac demands or in areas where the macro base stations has bad coverage. The low power base stations are cheaper and can be deployed without making a big impact on the rest of the network. On the downside, new interference scenarios follows heterogeneous deployments. This report will discuss interference scenarios and performance problems associated with heterogeneous deployment. Possible countermeasures will be presented and assessed.

1.3

Thesis outline

This report has the following structure.

1.3. Thesis outline

In chapter 2 a background to what interference is and how it arises will be presented. Common ways to mitigate interference in cellular systems will also be explained. Chapter 3 gives an introduction to LTE and LTE-Advanced and their main technologies. Chapter 4 explains the new interference scenarios associated with heterogeneous network deployment. Five studies have been performed for this report. First a study investigating the impact of misplacement of low power nodes is found in chapter 5. In simulations, unlike the reality, the placement of low power nodes is often ideal. The purpose of the study is to see how ideal versus non-ideal deployment aects the system performance. 3GPP has presented a set of system congurations which should be considered when simulating heterogeneous networks. In chapter 6 these congurations have been simulated and the performance has been analyzed to nd possible problems related to heterogeneous deployments. In one of the congurations it was seen that adding low power nodes will not give much gain. In chapter 7 this conguration has been further analyzed, this time with lower load to see the benets from adding low power nodes in that conguration. To increase the gain from the low power nodes their cell sizes can be increased, so called range extension. A study pertaining range extension is found in chapter 8. In chapter 9 a study is presented where the number of low power nodes is varied to see how the spectral eciency and other performance measurements are aected. Another question this study answers is how serious interference between low power nodes is for the performance. Conclusions, proposal and future work is found in chapter 10.1. The major interference problem seen arised when the range of low power nodes was extended. An ICIC-scheme is proposed to mitigate this interference. Joint Scheduling between Home eNBs and macro eNBs is proposed as future work.

Chapter 2

What is interference?
The capacity C of a communication channel with bandwidth B, such as the channel between a mobile phone and a base station, follows equation 2.1 according to Shannons Theorem.[2] SINR is the Signal-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratio and is discussed below. C = B log2 (1 + SIN R) (2.1)

If a transmitter TA transmits a signal to its desired receiver RA , at the same time as a transmitter TB transmits a signal, not only will RA receive TA s signal but also the signal from TB . See gure 2.1. At the receiver the signals will superposition and from RA s point of view TB s signal will be interference. Signal quality is in general quantied with Signal-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratio (SINR). High interference leads to low SINR meaning low quality of the wanted signal.

TB

RA

TA

RB

Figure 2.1: Interference between two terminals TA and TB . In digital communication the receiver is trying to detect the transmitted data. The lower the SINR is the harder it is for the receiver to correctly detect the transmitted signal. When the SINR is below a threshold correct detection is not possible. This means that if the number of simultaneously transmitting users within a bandwidth is too high no detections will be correct. In cellular networks the served area is divided in to smaller zones called cells. A cell will have a base station and the terminals in the cell will be connected to 5

Chapter 2. What is interference?

its base station. To make ecient use of the bandwidth dierent cells can use the same bandwidth. This reuse of bandwidth introduces some interference as there is a possibility of terminals in dierent cells using the same bandwidth at the same time. To counter interference dierent methods can be used, some of which are discussed in this chapter.

2.1

Frequency hopping

When a terminal gets assigned a channel it can either be assigned a free channel or a channel used by other terminals in other cells. If assigned a free channel the terminal will not experience any interference. If assigned a channel used by another terminal they will interfere each other until one stops transmitting. To counter this problem the terminals can at regular time intervals change channel. There will be a possibility of another collision but since the terminals will only stay in their channel for a limited time they will only be aected by the interference until the next frequency hop.1 The eect of frequency hopping can be seen as spreading the interference through time. What is needed? The transmitter and the receiver need to agree on the hopping pattern. Pros Interference gets averaged though time which gives a more reliable transmission. Cons Transmitters and receivers need some complexity to make them able to change frequency during transmission. The transmitter and receiver needs to communicate in advance to agree on the hopping pattern.

2.2

Spatial multiplexing

The principle of spatial multiplexing is to increase the number of available transmission channels between transmitter and receiver. This can be achieved by having multiple transmitting and receiving antennas, a so called MIMO antenna setup. According to Shannons theorem the capacity is given by: C = B log2 (1 + SIN R) In a MIMO system with Nt antennas at the transmitter and Nr antennas at the receiver, theoretically, NL = min(Nt , Nr ) dierent, uncorrelated paths can exist between them. The capacity of each channel is: C = B log2 1 +
1 As

Nr SIN R NL

long as the terminals are not unlucky and jumps to the same channel again.

2.3. Beam forming This gives a total capacity of: C = B NL log2 1 + Nr SIN R NL

In theory, the capacity is increasing linearly with the number of channels, which can be created by adding antennas.[3] In order for the receiver to demultiplex the data from the links it needs to know the properties of the created channels. This is achieved by having the transmitter transmit a known reference signal. The receiver estimates the channel properties from the received version of the reference signal and then tells the transmitter how it should code the data onto the antennas in order to get the best transmission.[4] What is needed? Multiple antennas at the transmitter and receiver are needed. The receiver also needs to do channel estimation and feed it back to the transmitter. Pros Theoretical linear increase of the capacity within a given bandwidth. Cons Complex antenna structures. Channel estimation is required. Communication between the transmitter and received is needed.

2.3

Beam forming

Beam forming is to change the antenna beam pattern by use of array antennas. The phase and amplitude of the signal is adjusted at each antenna element to form the beam pattern. The antenna beam pattern can be changed so that the main lobe is pointed towards a desired transmitter/receiver to achieve high antenna gain or to point the nulls in direction of undesired transmitters/receivers to avoid interference, see gure 2.2.[3] To form the antenna beam the antenna array needs several elements spaced suciently far apart. Due to size limitations of mobile terminals beam forming is not suitable for terminals. What is needed? Array antennas and feedback of measurements to the transmitter which are used to adjust the beam pattern is needed. Pros Transmitted power can be reduced due to higher antenna gains in main lobe. Interference can be reduced. Cons

Chapter 2. What is interference?

Figure 2.2: Example of beam forming. Advanced antenna structure with multiple antenna elements is needed. Pre-coding of the signal needs to be done before transmission. Not suitable for mobile terminals. Needs to sense the direction of the mobile terminals. Signaling between the terminal and the base station is needed.

2.4

Interference cancellation

In cellular networks several users can use the same bandwidth at the same time and therefore interfere each other. If a receiver can estimate the interfering signals they can cancel the interference by subtracting it. There are several ways of doing this, one of which is called Successive Interference Cancellation (SIC). In SIC the transmitters are given dierent code words with which they encode the signals before transmission. The receiver will try to demodulate and decode one of the signals from the received compound signal to extract its message. If successfully extracted the message is re-encoded, re-modulated and subtracted from the original signal. The procedure is repeated until all signals have been extracted. As signals get subtracted the SINR is getting higher in each recursion. The most eective way of extracting the signals is therefore by starting with the highest SINR signal.[5] If a decoding error is made the wrong signal will be subtracted which will destroy the compound signal and the error will in that sense propagate to the next step. What is needed? The receiver needs to know how each signal is modulated and encoded in order to decode and demodulate them. The structure diers depending on which cancellation method is used and can be more or less complex.

2.4. Interference cancellation Pros

Ability to extract multiple signals which are interfering each other. Cons Complex receiver structure. Delay due to signal processing. Not always possible to decode.

Chapter 3

Fourth Generation cellular networks

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has set the requirements for the fourth generation telecommunication systems, also called IMT-Advanced.[1] The requirements are as follows: Peak spectral eciency of 15 bit/s/Hz and 6.75 bit/s/Hz in downlink and uplink respectively1 . Data latencies of maximum 10 ms in both uplink and downlink. Latencies of maximum 50 and 150 ms for intra- and inter-frequency handovers respectively. Scalable bandwidth up to 40 M Hz . Increased cell spectral eciency according to table 3.1. The test environments are described in [6]. Test environment Indoor Microcellular Base coverage urban High speed Downlink (bit/s/Hz/cell) 3 2.6 2.2 1.1 Uplink (bit/s/Hz/cell) 2.55 1.8 1.4 0.7

Table 3.1: Cell spectral eciency requirements in IMT-Advanced. Increased cell edge user spectral eciency according to table 3.2. The test environments are described in [6]. Interworking with other radio access systems. Unicast and multicast broadcast services.
1 Assuming

an antenna conguration of downlink 4 4, uplink 2 4

11

12

Chapter 3. Fourth Generation cellular networks Downlink (bit/s/Hz/cell) 0.1 0.075 0.06 0.04 Uplink (bit/s/Hz/cell) 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.015

Test environment Indoor Microcellular Base coverage urban High speed

Table 3.2: Cell edge user spectral eciency requirements in IMT-Advanced. As discussed in section 1.1.4 LTE-Advanced is one of the most promising technologies to reach the requirements for a fourth generation wireless communication system. The focus in this report is on heterogeneous deployments in LTE-Advanced and we will, in section 3.2, look in to more details about LTE-Advanced. LTE-Advanced is an evolution of LTE which will be described rst.

3.1

Long Term Evolution

Long Term Evolution (LTE) is an air interface for cellular networks which is dened by 3GPP. The main components of LTE are introduced in this section.

3.1.1

OFDM

In LTE Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing-based (OFDM) transmission schemes are used for both uplink and downlink transmission. OFDM can be seen as a combination of TDMA and FDMA where the time is divided in to timeslots and frequency is divided into a large set of orthogonal narrowband channels called sub carriers. Twelve sub carriers are grouped together into a Physical Resource Block (PRB), see gure 3.1. This separation of User Equipments (UEs) means that is no interference between UEs within a cell but intercell interference exists.
Physical Resource Block

t
Figure 3.1: Representation of bandwidth resources in LTE. Before transmission the transmitter parallelizes the signal to several lower rate signals which gets modulated using QPSK, 16 QAM or 64 QAM. Each

3.2. LTE-Advanced

13

low rate signal will be transmitted on a separate sub carrier. The receiver then demodulates the signals and recreates the original signal before performing detection.

3.1.2

Spectrum exibility

LTE supports both Frequency-Division Duplexing (FDD) and Time-Division Duplexing (TDD) to separate uplink and downlink communication. Which band and bandwidth used by LTE is not specied in the standard. This implies that operators can deploy LTE in a variety of frequency bands. An operator which previously deployed GSM in the 900 M Hz spectrum can deploy LTE there instead and because the bandwidth is not specied the transition from GSM to LTE can be done gradually.[4]

3.1.3

Multiple antenna technology

As discussed in chapter 2, it is benecial to have several antennas for beam forming and spatial multiplexing. In LTE the terminals (UE in 3GPP terms) and base stations (eNB in 3GPP terms) supports up to two and four antennas respectively.[7][8]

3.1.4

Hybrid ARQ with soft combining

To cope with errors created in non ideal channels Hybrid ARQ (HARQ) is utilized in LTE. The transmitted data is coupled with two sets of redundant bits. One set of which is used by the receiver to rst try to correct errors and another set which later is used to detect uncorrected errors. After that the receiver has performed the correction of possible errors and detected whether the transmission was successful or not it will send a report to the transmitter of the outcome. In case of an erroneous transmission the transmitter resends the data. In HARQ the erroneous packets are discarded. A packet with errors can however contain some valuable information which would be lost if the packet is discarded. To avoid this waste a modication of the Hybrid ARQ scheme has been done. Hybrid ARQ with soft combining will save erroneous packets to be combined with retransmitted packets. The combination of two or more packets will be more reliable and will have higher chance of a successful detection.[4]

3.2

LTE-Advanced

The LTE standard does not fully reach the ITU requirements for a 4G system and is sometimes called 3.9G. LTE-Advanced is, however, planned to reach those requirements. 3GPPs aim is to have peak data rates of 1 Gbps in downlink and 500 M bps in uplink in a bandwidth of 100 M Hz . The spectrum eciency will then be 30 bit/s/Hz and 15 bit/s/Hz in downlink and uplink respectively. The key components that will make this possible are, among others, Carrier Aggregation, higher order MIMO, Heterogeneous network deployment and CoMP which are described below.[9]

14

Chapter 3. Fourth Generation cellular networks

LTE-A

LTE-A

LTE-A

LTE-A

LTE-A

(a) Multiple component carriers

Other services LTE-A LTE-A LTE-A

(b) Separated component carriers

Figure 3.2: Examples of carrier aggregation.

3.2.1

Carrier aggregation

In LTE the bandwidth can, as discussed in section 3.1.2, change in size. The bandwidth can be as narrow as around 1 M Hz up to 20 M Hz . Something which is new for LTE-Advanced is that it can be deployed using several frequency bands, adjacent or not, see gure 3.2a and 3.2b. The concept is called Carrier Aggregation (CA) in 3GPP terms where the bands used are called component carriers. Carrier Aggregation will be backward compatible with LTE UEs. LTE UEs will, however, only be able to use one component carrier at one time while LTE-Advanced UEs can use several to reach higher data rates. Carrier Aggregation is an important component in reaching higher data rates in the sense that operators can deploy LTE-Advanced in frequency bands they already own and gradually migrate to LTE-Advanced as described in section 3.1.2 instead of buying new bandwidth for LTE-Advanced.

3.2.2

Higher order MIMO

Multiple-Input-Multiple-Output (MIMO) antenna congurations refer to the existence of multiple antennas at the transmitter and receiver. With multiple antennas multiple channels can be created between the transmitter and receiver for so called spatial multiplexing described in section 2.2. MIMO was included in the LTE standard with support for four antennas at the base station and two antennas in the UE. In LTE-Advanced it will be possible to have eight antennas at the base station and four in the UE, or even more.

3.2.3

Coordinated Multi-Point transmission and reception

Coordinated Multi-Point transmission and reception (CoMP) is a technology aimed to improve coverage of high data rates, cell edge performance as well as overall system performance. The principle of CoMP methods is to have several eNBs coordinating their transmissions. There are two categories of CoMP;

3.2. LTE-Advanced

15

Coordinated Scheduling/Coordinated Beam forming (CS/CB) and Joint Processing/Joint Transmission (JP/JT). The rst type, Coordinated Scheduling/Coordinated Beam forming, means that the involved eNBs are coordinating the access to the resource blocks in a way so that interference will be avoided. If, for example, one eNB is communicating with an edge UE the neighboring eNB should then avoid schedule one of its edge UEs at the same time. Beam forming can also be used in a way so that the eNBs coordinate their beams not to interfere with each other. See gure 3.3.

Figure 3.3: Example of beam forming. In Joint Processing/Joint Transmission several cooperating eNBs are transmitting to one single UE. The data which is going to be transmitted to the UE therefore needs to be available at all involved eNBs. Interference can be avoided by having the cooperating eNBs process the signals in a way so that interfering signals will destruct at the UE. To achieve this, a lot of signaling is needed to be sent over the back haul at the same time as the eNBs have access to the channel conditions.[9] See gure 3.4. One diculty with CoMP is that if we want the eNBs to cooperate they need to be able to exchange messages within a few milliseconds to not be obsolete when arriving. This put latency and throughput restrictions on the connections between the nodes.[10]

3.2.4

Heterogeneous network deployment

Heterogeneous network deployment refers to a network where eNBs of dierent transmit powers, i.e. dierent cell sizes, is distributed in a nonuniform manner throughout the served area. To increase the performance and oer higher data rates it is possible to add eNBs with low output power at heavy loaded areas where the signal from the macro eNB is weak. Below is a description of the base stations in LTE-Advanced is specied.

16

Chapter 3. Fourth Generation cellular networks

Figure 3.4: Joint processing of signals. Macro eNB is the top level node. The UEs should be able to reach a macro base station from anywhere within the service area. The transmit power is typically around 43 dBm. The macro eNBs are connected to each other with a dedicated back haul connection. Relay eNB is a low power (23 30 dBm) eNB with a over-the-air back haul connection to the serving macro eNB. Pico eNB is a low power eNB which has a dedicated back haul connection. The transmit power is usually around 23 30 dBm. The nodes are deployed by the operator. Femto eNB, or Home eNB (HeNB), as they also are called, are low power nodes that the users can buy and deploy where they need. Femto eNBs are connected to the rest of the network through the Internet. Since the users, instead of the operators, deploy femto eNBs planning is not possible for the femto eNBs. The femto eNBs can operate in two modes; open access or Closed Subscriber Group (CSG). If operating in open access any UE can connect to the node while in the CSG mode only authorized UEs can connect. The owner of a femto eNB can for example give access to its family and friends.[11]

Chapter 4

New interference scenarios in Heterogeneous Networks

Heterogeneous network deployment both has benets and drawbacks. It is benecial to add low power nodes where the macro eNBs signal has problem reaching, inside buildings for examples. It is also benecial to add low power nodes in high user density areas to support the high trac. On the other hand, new interference scenarios are created which are not seen in traditional homogeneous deployments. Section 4.1.1 to 4.2.2 describes four interference scenarios related to heterogeneous deployments. Section 4.3 discusses how cell association and the UE target output power can be adjusted to mitigate interference.

Low power node 1

Low power node 3

Low power node 2

Figure 4.1: Heterogeneous deployment example.

17

18

Chapter 4. New interference scenarios in Heterogeneous Networks

4.1
4.1.1

Downlink
Low power eNB interference to macro UE

Low power nodes and macro eNBs normally use the same spectrum. Because of this, a macro UE close to a low power node might receive a stronger signal from the low power node than from the macro eNB which results in low SINR. This eect gets worse in cases when the distance to the macro eNB is big and when the macro UE is close to the low power node. See gure 4.2.

Macro UE Low power node UE

Figure 4.2: Interference from low power eNB to macro UE.

4.1.2

Macro eNB interference to low power node UE

In case a low power node is close to the macro eNB the UEs connected to the low power node can get interference from the macro eNB. Since the macro eNB has higher output power than low power nodes there can be cases when the low power node UEs gets a stronger signal from the macro than from the low power node. The closer the low power eNB is to the macro eNB the stronger this eect gets. See gure 4.3.

4.2
4.2.1

Uplink
Macro UE interference to low power eNB

Low power nodes will receive interference from macro UEs. The further a UE gets from the serving eNB the higher power it transmits in order to reach the eNB. This eect gets stronger when the low power node is on the macro cell edge. See gure 4.4.

4.2.2

Low power node UE interference to macro eNB

When a low power eNB is close to the macro eNB the signals from the UEs in the low power cell can reach the macro eNB and therefore create interference.

4.3. Crucial factors

19

Macro UE

Low power node UE

Figure 4.3: Interference from macro eNB to low power node UE.

Macro UE

Low power node UE

Figure 4.4: Interference from macro UE to low power eNB. This is shown in gure 4.5.

4.3

Crucial factors

Aside from the factors given in section 4.1.1 to 4.2.2 other factors can aect the interference in the system, such as cell association and P0 osets discussed below.

4.3.1

Cell association

As discussed, high interference can arise when UEs are close to an eNB that they are not connected to. Therefore cell selection in heterogeneous networks is an important factor to the system performance. The task of assigning UEs to base stations is non-trivial and there is no universally optimal way of solving the task.

20

Chapter 4. New interference scenarios in Heterogeneous Networks

Macro UE Low power node UE

Figure 4.5: Interference from low power node UE to macro eNB.

If, for example, the cell association is optimized for downlink transmissions the upload transmissions will suer and vice versa. To optimize the downlink performance the UE should be assigned to the base stations from which the strongest signal is received. In this way the higher power a base station is transmitting the bigger the cell gets. This approach in cell association is called Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP). To optimize uplink transmissions the UEs should be assigned to the base stations to which the path loss is lowest. This way of path loss based cell association will make the UEs connect to the base station which will have the best potential to receive it. Figure 4.6 shows these two ways of association UEs with the low power nodes. If RSRP cell association is used the low power node cell will be smaller having the blue cell border. If path loss based cell association is used the cell border will be larger and have the red cell border. In either case the UEs in the yellow region will create or receive interference. If RSRP cell association is used the UEs in the yellow region will be connected to the macro eNB for optimal downlink performance. As seen in the gure the UEs in the yellow region will be closer to the low power node but connected to the macro eNB. This means that the low power node will receive a stronger version of their signal than the macro eNB and uplink performance is not optimal. They will also create interference to the low power node described in section 4.2.1. If path loss based cell association is used the UEs in the yellow region will connect to the low power nodes. In this case they will be connected to the base station which will get the strongest version of their transmitted signal which will optimize uplink performance. In downlink there will be problems. The UEs in the yellow region gets a stronger signal from the macro eNB compared to the low power node and the signal received from the macro eNB is interference to them. A compromise between RSRP and path loss based cell association is to use RSRP with osets. When comparing the received power from two base stations,

4.3. Crucial factors

21

Figure 4.6: Illustration of RSRP and path loss based cell association. say a macro eNB and a low power eNB, an oset is added to the measured received power from the low power node resulting in that the UEs will with higher probability connect to the low power node. This can be thought of as enlarging the low power cells without changing their output power and is called range extension (RE).

4.3.2

P0 oset

As we saw earlier in this chapter the dierence in output power between low power nodes and macro nodes creates interference problems. A macro UE just outside the cell border of a low power node can create strong uplink interference to the low power node. See section 4.2.1. To overcome this problem the low power node can tell its UEs to increase their output power to fend the high interference.[12]

Chapter 5

Impact of misplacement of low power nodes

The following study will show how misplacement of low power nodes within a hot zone will aect the performance of the system.

5.1

Background

In cellular networks users tend to gather in certain areas, such as in a shopping mall or a busy square, forming so called hot zones. To support the high trac in a hot zone a low power base station can be deployed in it. Hot zones are often modeled in an ideal manner as a perfect circle in which a low power node is placed in the center. In reality a hot zone is dened by the location of the UEs. The shape and location of hot zones therefore change as the UEs move and the low power nodes are in general not located in the center of the hot zones. The aim of this study is to see how the performance is aected by having non perfect deployment compared to perfect deployment of low power nodes within hot zones. To investigate this there is a need to see how the distribution of UEs between the low power nodes and the macro nodes together with the SINR distributions are changing in the dierent deployment scenarios. The conclusions obtained for uplink are applicable to downlink as well.

5.2

Simulation details

To perform the simulations in this report a simulation tool which simulates LTE in high detail on the lower layer protocol stack has been used. System parameters such as trac model, propagation model and deployment are input in the simulator and the output has then been processed in MatLab.

5.2.1

Performance Measurements

In this section details about the performance measurements are described. The performance measurements are calculated in the same manner in all studies in 23

24 this report.

Chapter 5. Impact of misplacement of low power nodes

PRB utilization In each Transmission Time Interval (TTI) the PRB utilization is calculated by dividing the number of PRBs used for transmission by the total number of PRBs, according to equation 5.1. The PRB utilization is averaged over the whole simulation time. number of P RBs used f or transmission total number of P RBs

P RB utilization = Interference

(5.1)

The base stations will sum the total received power under a time t seconds. After t seconds the interference is calculated by subtracting the power of useful signal from the total power. The interference is calculated according to equation 5.2 and is averaged over time, PRB and cell and presented in dBm. Interf erence = 10 log10 (T otal received power U sef ul signal power) + 30 (5.2) The time t is 0.2 seconds in these simulations. SINR The SINR is the useful signal in a transmission divided by the interference plus noise, see equation 5.3. The SINR is presented in dB. U sef ul signal power Interf erence The SINR is averaged over a time t = 0.2 s SIN R = Cell throughput The cell throughput is calculated by starting a timer and having a counter count the number of received bits. After a time t the simulator calculates the throughput according to equation 5.4 after which the number of received bits is set to zero before the counter is restarted. Cell throughput = Where t = 0.2 s. UE throughput The UE throughput is calculated in a similar way as the cell throughput, see equation 5.5. U E throughput = Where t = 0.2 s. N umber of received bits t (5.5) N umber of received bits t (5.4) (5.3)

5.2. Simulation details

25

5.2.2

Congurations

Two cases have been simulated. First the low power nodes have been placed, as they often are in simulations, in the center of the hot zone, from here on refereed to as bingo deployment. Thereafter the low power nodes have been placed randomly within the hot zones, referred to as random deployment. Within the hot zones 50 % of the users are placed, while the rest of the users are distributed randomly within the system. No low power nodes. (Reference case) Bingo deployment. One hot zone per macro cell area where 50 % of the UEs are placed. A low power node is deployed in the center of each hot zone. 0 dB Range extension 8 dB Range extension 16 dB Range extension Random deployment. One hot zone where 50 % of the UEs are placed. A low power node is deployed at a random location within the hot zone. 0 dB Range extension 8 dB Range extension 16 dB Range extension

5.2.3

System parameters

Range extension has been achieved by changing the cell association algorithm. The UEs measure the received signal power from the all base stations from which they receive a signal. For all low power nodes an oset is added to the received power. The UEs then connect to the base station which has the highest value. The system parameters are found in table 5.1. The reason for not having shadow is to make the simulations run faster. The propagation model is dened by the following two equations. The gain from a macro eNB to a UE is follows equation 5.6 and the gain from a low power node to a UE follows equation 5.7. angle 2

Gain = 35.3 3.76 10 log10 (distance) + 14 min 12

70 360

, 20 (5.6)

Gain = 50.6 3.67 10 log10 (distance)

(5.7)

where distance is the distance from a UE to its base station and angle is the angle between the UE and middle of the base station antenna beam.

26

Chapter 5. Impact of misplacement of low power nodes Parameter Deployment Number of macro base stations Number of cells per macro base station Hot zone radius Cell radius Macro to macro distance Minimum LPN to LPN distance Minimum LPN to macro distance Resources Bandwidth Number of PRBs Propagation Macro propagation factor Macro attenuation constant Low power node propagation factor Low power node attenuation constant Shadow fading Base station specics Noise gure Macro base station output power Macro base station antenna elements (per cell) Low power base station output power Low power base station antenna elements Transmit antenna ports Receive antenna ports UE specics Speed Output power Noise gure UE antenna elements Transmit antenna ports Receive antenna ports Miscellaneous UE scheduling algorithm Table 5.1: System parameters. Value 7 3 40 m 167 m 500 m 75 m 75 m 10 MHz 50 3.76 35.3 3.67 50.6 -

5 dB 40 W 2 1W 2 1 2 0 m/s 0.2 W 9 dB 2 1 2 Round robin

5.2.4

Trac model

The trac model is chosen to comply with the Poisson based trac model 1 specied in [9]. Users arrive in the system following a Poisson distribution with an arrival intensity of users per second. They upload or download one FTP packet of xed size and then disappear from the system. : 150 UE/s system wide. (7.14 UE/s/cell) FTP packet size: 100 kByte

5.3. Results

27

This trac model was chosen in order generate xed oered trac regardless of how the system performs in dierent situations. The trac model generates the following oered trac. 120 Mbps system wide. 5.712 Mbps per macro cell area. Simulation time is 100 seconds during which 14947 UEs was created, i.e. 149.47 UEs / second.

5.3

Results

The following results were obtained by computer simulations. Only uplink performance has been analyzed in this study.

5.3.1

Performance overview

In table 5.2 the throughput performance has been summarized. Reference case 8 dB Random 16 dB Random 5.8
(5%)

0 dB Random

Macro cell area throughput (Mbps) Macro cell throughput (Mbps) Low power node throughput (Mbps) Spectral eciency
(bps/Hz/Macro cell area)

5.5 5.5 0.55 0.014 1.0 1.6

5.8
(5%)

5.8
(5%)

5.8
(5%)

8 dB Bingo

5.8
(5%)

5.8
(5%)

4.4 1.4 0.58

(5%)

4.6 1.2 0.58

(5%)

3.2 2.7 0.58

(5%)

3.5 2.4 0.58

(5%)

2.4 3.4 0.58

(5%)

16 dB Bingo

0 dB Bingo

2.4 3.4 0.58

(5%)

5 % UE throughput (Mbps) 50 % UE throughput (Mbps) 95 % UE throughput (Mbps)

0.78
(5500%)

0.73
(5100%)

1.0
(7000%)

0.98
(6900%)

1.1
(7800%)

1.1
(7800%)

1.5
(50%)

1.4
(40%)

1.6
(60%)

1.6
(60%)

1.7
(70%)

1.7
(70%)

1.8
(15.5%)

1.8
(15.5%)

1.9
(18.8%)

1.8
(15.5%)

1.9
(18.8%)

1.9
(18.8%)

Table 5.2: Uplink throughput. The numbers in the parentheses are the gains compared to the reference case.

5.3.2

User distribution

The number of UEs in the hot zones is 50 % in all congurations. To cover the whole hot zone means that we should see 50 % of the UEs connection go the

28

Chapter 5. Impact of misplacement of low power nodes

low power nodes.1 In gure 5.1 and table 5.3 the percentage of UEs connection to the low power nodes is displayed.
User distributions
3500

3000

2500

Number of Users

2000

1500

1000

500 Macro users Low power node users 0 No low power nodeBingo Random Bingo 8dB Random 8dBBingo 16dBRandom 16dB

Figure 5.1: Distribution of UEs between macro and low power nodes. From table 5.3 we can see that when RSRP is used without any oset 25 % and 20 % of the UEs are connection to the low power nodes in the bingo and random case respectively. This means that 50 % and 40 % of the hot zone is covered by the low power cell. When the oset is increased a larger portion of the hot zones are covered by the low power nodes and in the case of 16 dB range extension we can see that the whole hot zone is covered. Comparing the values in the bingo and random deployment cases it is seen that the bigger the cell is, i.e. the larger oset is used, the smaller the impact of misplacement is on the number of UEs connecting to the low power nodes. The PRB utilization in the macro layer is compiled in table 5.4.

5.3.3

Interference

Figure 5.2 is showing the average interference received by the base stations. The dierence in interference between bingo and random deployment is due to dierent number of UEs connecting to the low power nodes. The relation between number of UEs connecting to the low power node and the interference is discussed below. Low power eNB A decrease in interference to the low power nodes is observed as the osets gets larger. This is explained by that a low power node gets the strongest interference from macro UEs surrounding the cell. The number of UEs in the hot zones is
UE which are not placed in the hot zones intentionally are randomly distributed throughout the system area. There is a chance that a UE not chosen to be placed in the hot zone are placed there anyway. This means that to cover the whole hot zone a low power node should actually have more than 50 % of the UEs connected to it.
1 The

5.3. Results Increase Bingo vs. Random

29

0 dB 8 dB 16 dB

25 % 46 % 59 %

Bingo

20 % 39 % 56 %

Random

25 % 18 % 5%

Table 5.3: Percentage of UEs connected to the low power nodes.

Reference case

8 dB Random

0 dB Bingo

Macro uplink PRB utilization

80 %

65 %

70 %

48 %

8 dB Bingo

54 %

39 %

41 %

Table 5.4: Macro PRB utilization.

the same regardless of the oset abut what diers is the number of UEs which are absorbed by the low power nodes. In the case without oset, there will be a large number of surrounding UEs which are connected to the macro eNB and the interference is -93.6 dBm and -94.1 dBm in the Bingo and Random case respectively. If an oset is added those surrounding UEs are absorbed by the low power node and therefore will not interfere to it and in case of a 16 dB range extension the whole hot zone is covered and the interference is reduced to -111 dBm and -110 dBm. This eect was earlier explained in section 4.2.1. Macro eNB There are two factors aecting the interference to macro eNBs as the oset changes. The dominant interferers to a macro eNB are the edge UEs in neighboring cells and the UEs connected to low power nodes within its own cell. By increasing the osets of a low power node, hence assigning more UEs to it, there will be more possible interferers to the macro eNB. UEs which earlier were intra cell UEs have become inter cell UEs when absorbed by the low power nodes and therefore will interfere with the macro cells. On the other hand, in neighboring cells edge UEs are absorbed by the low

16 dB Random

0 dB Random

16 dB Bingo

30

Chapter 5. Impact of misplacement of low power nodes

Interference Received by Base Stations Averages
93.6 94.1

90

Interference (dBm)

110

111 110

120

Ref 0 dB Bingo 0 dB Random 8 dB Bingo 8 dB Random 16 dB Bingo 16 dB Random Low power node Macro Macro cell area

130

Figure 5.2: Interference received by base stations. power node as well. Those UEs will be closer to their serving eNB and will transmit with less output power and therefore interfere less. From the interference reduction we can conclude that the interference added by the low power node UEs is smaller than the reduction of interference from the neighboring cells. It can be seen that the interference from neighboring cells decreases and compensates for the interference from the low power nodes. Overall Summing the interference received by the low power nodes and the macro nodes shows that it is possible to get lower interference than in the homogeneous deployment case if the range is extended. It can be concluded that the interference depends on how many UEs are handed over to the low power node. If a low power node is misplaced it will have fewer UEs connecting to it and therefore the interference will be stronger. The dierence in interference between bingo and random deployment is around 1 dB in all congurations.

5.3.4

SINR

Which modulation scheme (QPSK, 16 QAM or 64 QAM) can be used for a transmission depends on the SINR level. With high SINR higher modulation schemes can be used, hence utilizing the bandwidth more eciently. In this section the SINR for the UEs is analyzed. The SINR is calculated from equation 5.8. SIN R = S I +N (5.8)

106 104 109 108

100

102 105 104 107 106 108 107

104 103

102

96.3 96.7

5.3. Results Low power node users

31

In gure 5.3 a CDF over the SINR for UEs connected to low power nodes is shown. When the range is extended the following two things will happen. 1. The average distance from the low power nodes to their UEs will increase giving an average higher path loss and lower SINR. 2. The interference decreases which will give higher SINR, mainly to the edge UEs. An explanation to why edge UEs are mostly aected by the uplink interference reduction is found in section 8.2.3. For the high percentiles the SINR seems to decrease when using range extension. The reason for this is described in point 1. Worth noting is that the UEs who were connected to the low power node in the case without range extension will get higher SINR when range extension is applied due to lower interference. In the lower percentiles the edge UEs are found. In the case without range extension the edge UEs are closer to the low power node compared to the cases with range extension. When the range is extended the edge UEs will have higher path loss which is reducing the SINR but at the same time range extension reduced the interference and since the interference reduction is larger than the higher path loss a higher SINR is achieved. The path loss from the low power node to its edge will be 8 or 16 dB when the range is extended. At the same time the interference will in those cases be 10.4 and 17.4 dB lower respectively resulting in a gain.
Uplink UE SINR Low power node UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 20 10 0 10 SINR (dB) 20 30 40 0 dB Bingo 0 dB Random 8 dB Bingo 8 dB Random 16 dB Bingo 16 dB Random

Figure 5.3: CDF - average low power node uplink UE SINR.

Macro users Figure 5.4 shows a CDF over the macro UE SINR. When deploying a low power node the number of UEs connecting to it will depend on its distance to the macro

32

Chapter 5. Impact of misplacement of low power nodes

eNB. A low power node on the edge of the macro cell will absorb more UEs than a low power node deployed close to the macro eNB. This means that the low power nodes will, on average, absorb more edge UEs compared to center UEs. The observed gain in SINR in the low percentiles is not a direct gain but rather a gain coming from removing edge UEs from the macro cells which therefore will not be present in the macro SINR CDF. The higher the oset is the more UEs will be absorbed by the low power nodes and the bigger gain is seen. The UEs in the high percentiles are those close to the macro eNB. Those UEs are not as likely to be absorbed by the low power nodes and will only gain from lower interference.
Uplink UE SINR Macro UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 10 5 0 5 10 15 SINR (dB) 20 25 30 Ref 0 dB Bingo 0 dB Random 8 dB Bingo 8 dB Random 16 dB Bingo 16 dB Random

Figure 5.4: CDF - average macro uplink UE SINR.

All users A CDF for all UEs average SINR is shown in gure 5.5. The SINR is higher when the low power nodes are deployed in the center of the hot zones. We also see that the importance of bingo deployment is also reduced as the oset increases.

5.3.5

Cell Throughput

In this section the cell throughput is discussed. Averages Figure 5.6 shows the average cell throughput. We see the eect of the low power node ooading the macro cells. In the reference case the served trac was 5.54 Mbps but when the low power nodes are deployed the served trac increased to 5.81 Mbps.

5.3. Results
Uplink UE SINR All UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 20 10 0 10 SINR (dB) 20 30 40 Ref 0 dB Bingo 0 dB Random 8 dB Bingo 8 dB Random 16 dB Bingo 16 dB Random

33

Figure 5.5: CDF - average uplink UE SINR including all UEs.

x 10
6

Uplink Cell Throughput Averages

436000 0 462000 0

5
266000 0 237000 0 344000 0 340000 0

Throughput (bps)

144000 0 119000 0

239000 0 244000 0

316000 0 345000 0

Low power node

Macro

Figure 5.6: Average uplink cell throughput per cell.

Low power cell The location of the hot zones have been chosen randomly in these simulations which lets us see the eect of having low power nodes both close to and far away from the macro base station. In gure 5.8 we see a CDF of the throughput for the low power nodes. The lower part of the CDF represents low power node cells located close to the macro eNB and are therefore small, see gure 5.7a. These low power nodes absorb few UEs and therefore will have low throughput. In the upper part of the CDF are low power nodes located on the macro cell

554000 0 581000 0 581000 0 582000 0 582000 0 584000 0 583000 0

Ref 0 dB Bingo 0 dB Random 8 dB Bingo 8 dB Random 16 dB Bingo 16 dB Random Macro cell area

34

Chapter 5. Impact of misplacement of low power nodes

(a) Small low power node cell due to short(b) Large low power node cell due to long distance to macro eNB. distance to macro eNB.

Figure 5.7: Dierent low power node cell sizes depending on distance to macro node. edge which therefore are large, see gure 5.7b. Those cells will absorb many UEs and therefore have high throughput. Looking at the solid lines, the case without RSRP oset, it is observed that the dierence between random and bingo deployed low power nodes is small for the low power nodes close to the macro eNB. For low power nodes on the macro cell edge, on the other hand, there is a bigger dierence between the two cases. A low power node close to the macro eNB is small and few UEs are to be connected to it. Moving a low power node away from the center of the hot zone then has small eect. The further the low power node gets from the center of the macro eNB the more important the deployment is. There is a turning point where the low power node cell gets big enough to cover the whole hot zone. If the low power cell covers more than the hot zone a misplacement is not as critical as it would be with a smaller cell. This is seen in the upper part of the CDF for 8 dB oset. Looking at the 16 dB oset case the low power nodes are big enough to cover the whole hot zones even if they are moved and therefore will not suer from low power node misplacement. Macro cell As the low power node is increasing in size more UEs are getting assigned to it and ooaded from the macro eNB. This eect is seen in the macro cell throughput CDF in gure 5.9. The CDF is an inverted version of the low power cell throughput CDF. Overall The macro cell area throughput is the throughput of the macro cell and its low power node cell. A CDF for the macro cell area throughput is seen in gure 5.10. What is observed is that no distinct dierence is seen between the cases when the low power node is randomly deployed or bingo deployed within the hot zone. All cases which have low power nodes deployed are having higher

5.3. Results
Uplink Cell Throughput Low power nodes 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Throughput (bps) 3.5 4 4.5 x 10
6

35

0 dB Bingo 0 dB Random 8 dB Bingo 8 dB Random 16 dB Bingo 16 dB Random

Figure 5.8: CDF - average uplink low power node cell throughput.
Uplink Cell Throughput Macro cells 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 Throughput (bps) 0 dB Bingo 0 dB Random 8 dB Bingo 8 dB Random 16 dB Bingo 16 dB Random 5 x 10 6
6

Figure 5.9: CDF - average uplink macro cell throughput. macro cell area throughput than the reference case due to the ooading of the macro eNB, as we saw from the average cell throughput in gure 5.6.

5.3.6

UE Throughput

What is interesting for the users is which throughput they get. The throughput depends on two parameters; the SINR and the number of PRBs available for

36

Chapter 5. Impact of misplacement of low power nodes

Uplink Cell Throughput Macro cell area 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 Throughput (bps) Ref 0 dB Bingo 0 dB Random 8 dB Bingo 8 dB Random 16 dB Bingo 16 dB Random 6.5 7 7.5 x 10
6

Figure 5.10: CDF - average uplink macro cell area throughput.

the UEs. In this section the UE throughput is shown. Low power node users In gure 5.11 a CDF with the average UE throughput for the low power node UEs is found. The UEs in the low percentiles are UEs on the edge of the low power nodes. Those UEs are limited by the SINR and the throughput then follows the SINR curves. The UEs in the center of the low power node cells are having high SINR and will instead be limited by the available bandwidth resources. For the UEs limited by bandwidth no signicant gain is obtained by increased SINR. Macro users In gure 5.12 a CDF over the average throughput for macro UEs is found. The UEs connected to the macro eNBs are both gaining from higher SINR and more bandwidth resources. It was seen that the SINR increases as the osets increase at the same time as the macro eNBs gets ooaded which gives more PRB per UE to the UEs which remains connected to the macro eNB. All users A CDF including all UEs is shown in gure 5.13. Adding low power nodes increase the throughput and the gain is higher if the low power node is deployed in the center of the hot zone. The dierence between the bingo and random deployment is smaller when osets are added. With 0 dB oset the 50 percentile UE throughput is 3.5 % higher in the bingo case compared to the random case, while with 16 dB oset this number is 1.2 %. The edge UEs are suering more from misplacement and the corresponding numbers are 7.5 % and 1.8 %.

5.4. Conclusions
UE throughput Low power node UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 Throughput (bps) 0 dB Bingo 0 dB Random 8 dB Bingo 8 dB Random 16 dB Bingo 16 dB Random 2 2.5 x 10
6

37

Figure 5.11: CDF - average uplink low power node UE throughput.

UE throughput Macro UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 Throughput (bps) Ref 0 dB Bingo 0 dB Random 8 dB Bingo 8 dB Random 16 dB Bingo 16 dB Random 2 2.5 x 10
6

Figure 5.12: CDF - average uplink low power node UE throughput.

5.4

Conclusions

This study aimed to show if the results obtained in simulations with ideal low power node placement can be generalized and applies to real networks where the low power node placement is not ideal. The system that has been simulated is quite extreme when considering the UE distribution where 50 % of the UEs are located in one hot zone per cell. The reason for this setup is to get distinct results. A more commonly used system setup was earlier simulated without seeing

38

Chapter 5. Impact of misplacement of low power nodes

UE throughput All UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 Throughput (bps) Ref 0 dB Bingo 0 dB Random 8 dB Bingo 8 dB Random 16 dB Bingo 16 dB Random 2 2.5 x 10
6

Figure 5.13: CDF - average uplink UE throughput including all UEs.

any signicant dierent between the bingo and random deployments meaning low impact of the placement of low power nodes. In the simulations done in the rest of this report more commonly seen system setups have been used. We can then conclude that the results obtained for the simulations can be generalized and applies to real networks which have a random error in the low power node placement. Overall UE SINR gain with perfect deployment compared to random deployment. More UEs are absorbed by the low power nodes and therefore gets higher SINR. The UEs who are not absorbed by the low power nodes are beneting from less interference. Small dierence in UE throughput between the bingo and random deployment cases. The more the range of the low power nodes is extended the less it matters if it is perfectly deployed or not. The more UEs connecting to the low power nodes the more the macro eNB gets ooaded resulting in more PRBs per UE in the macro cell. Deploying a low power node gives higher eect if it is deployed on edge of a cell. If it is not easy to nd the hotspot center the best thing is to deploy in a direction away from the serving macro eNB. A more uniform user experience is achieved with osets.

5.4. Conclusions

39

Note: Earlier simulations with a less extreme case with lower photzone showed even less dierence between the bingo and random deployments. In a realistic system where photzone is lower the dierence between bingo and random deployment is expected to be even lower.

Chapter 6

Analysis of 3GPP system congurations

It has been discussed in chapter 4 dierent interference scenarios that can arise when adding lower power nodes to cellular systems. To see the eects of low power node deployment a study has been carried out examining three dierent system congurations specied by 3GPP. This study will show where problems arise and ways of improvement will be given.

6.1

Simulation details

The details of the simulated systems are described in the coming sections.

6.1.1

Congurations

3GPP has in [9] specied a set of congurations which should be considered when analyzing heterogeneous deployments in LTE, see table 6.1. Conguration 4b 2 2/3 Conguration 4a 2 4/15 Conguration 1 2 0

Number of low power nodes photzone

Table 6.1: 3GPP heterogeneous network deployment congurations.

In the reference case a traditional homogeneous network with only macro base stations is used for comparison. The conguration 1, 4a and 4b two hot zones are located at random positions within each macro cell area with a collocated low power node. Within those hot zones a percentage of the users, 41

Reference case 0 -

42

Chapter 6. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations

specied by photzone , are placed while the rest of the users are distributed randomly within the system.

6.1.2

System parameters

The system parameters are the same as in chapter 5.

6.1.3

Trac model

The trac model is the same as in chapter 5 with the following parameters. : 13 UE/s system wide. (0.62 UE/s/Cell) FTP packet size: 2 MByte The trac model will generate the following oered trac. 208 Mbps system wide. 9.9 Mbps per macro cell area. Simulation time is 100 seconds during which 1254 UEs was created, i.e. 12.54 UEs / second.

6.1.4

User distribution

In the dierent congurations photzone , i.e. the clustering factor is changing. As photzone increases more UEs are placed in the vicinity of the low power nodes and more UEs are therefore connecting to them. The distribution of UEs between macro eNB and low power nodes is shown in gure 6.1.
UE distributions 1400 1200 1000 Number of UEs 800 600 400 200 0

Macro UEs Low power node UEs Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

Figure 6.1: User distribution between macro eNB and low power nodes in conguration 1, 4a and 4b.

6.2. Uplink results

43

A compilation of the UE distributions and PRB utilization is shown in table 6.2. First it can be seen that less than half of the area of the hot zone is covered by the low power node. This means that there are many UEs residing just outside the low power node cell.1 Note: The UEs not intentionally placed in a hot zone are evenly distributed through the system area meaning that there is a 7 % chance they will be placed in the hot zones anyway.2 Conguration 4b 72 34 47 77 57 % % % % % Conguration 4a 37 18 49 90 80 % % % % % Conguration 1 6% 94 % 91 %

UEs in hot zones UEs connected to LPN LPN coverage of hot zone Macro uplink PRB utilization Macro downlink PRB utilization

95 % 93 %

Table 6.2: User distribution and macro PRB utilization.

The macro PRB utilization is calculated with equation 5.1. The macro PRB utilization depends on the number of macro UEs. We see that when the macro cell is ooaded by the low power nodes the macro PRB utilization goes down. In the reference case and the low clustered cases the macro PRB utilization is very high meaning that the PRB per UE ratio will be low. Low throughput is expected for the macro UEs due to the heavy load. It can be concluded that it is a need to free resources in the macro eNB. The macro PRB utilization is lower in downlink compared to uplink. The output power of the macro eNB is 40 W with means that the output power per PRB is 0.8 W. Comparing this to 0.2 W which is the output power of the UEs tells us that the signal in downlink is stronger than in uplink resulting in higher SINR and higher throughput per PRB in downlink. Since the oered load is the same for uplink and downlink simulations a higher throughput per PRB results in lower PRB utilization. To make a fair comparison between the congurations the PRB utilization is measured in macro eNBs only.

6.2

Uplink results

In this section the performance for uplink transmissions is discussed. For uplink transmissions each UE uploads one FTP packet according to the trac model in section 6.1.3.
1 This is a potential source of high interference to the low power nodes as described in chapter 4. 2 The hot zone area is 7 % of the macro cell area.

Reference case

44

Chapter 6. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations

6.2.1

Performance overview

The lifetimes, or FTP delays as they also will be referred to, for each conguration are found in table 6.3. The FTP delay is the time taken from that the UE sends the rst data of a packet until it has transmitted the whole packet and disappear from the system. In the same table the percentage of UEs who nishes their transmission before the simulation ends are shown. The numbers in table 6.3 are approximates because the simulator logs the delay only for UEs which nishes their upload before the simulation time ends. Therefore the actual delays are expected to be longer than stated in the table. Conguration 4b 5.64 7.42 2.35 93.0 % 93.0 % 97.4% Conguration 4a 11.1 13.5 2.05 78.42 % 74.5 % 97.7 % Conguration 1 17.1 18.4 1.95 63.0 % 61.0 % 97.3 %

Average UE lifetime (s) Average macro UE lifetime (s) Average LPN UE lifetime (s) Finished upload Finished upload macro Finished upload LPN

20.7 20.7 60.4 % 60.4 % -

Table 6.3: FTP upload time.

It is desired to have a uniform user experience in the network. It is found from table 6.4 that the low percentiles of UEs have very low throughput in the reference case and in low clustered cases. There is a big dierence in UE lifetimes for the macro and low power node case in the no or lightly clustered cases. Deploying low power nodes in a system with uniform UE distribution will benet only a few users, this might not be desired by the operators.

6.2.2

Cell throughput

In gure 6.2 the average throughput per cell is seen. The dierence between the congurations is the number of UEs gathered around the low power nodes. The more UEs cluster around the low power nodes the more UEs connect to them instead of the macro eNBs; hence their trac will go through the low power node instead. The low power node is said to ooad the macro eNB. We see this eect by comparing the low power node and the macro throughput where the low power nodes throughput is increased at the same time as the macro eNBs throughput decreases when the UEs gather around the low power nodes. The macro cell area throughput, which is the throughput for the macro cell together with its two low power nodes throughput, is seen to increase when the UEs cluster around the low power nodes. This indicates that the system was congested and by ooading the macro eNB the system gets less congested and more data can get through.

Reference case

6.2. Uplink results Conguration 4b Conguration 4a

45

Macro cell area throughput (Mbps) Macro cell throughput (Mbps) Low power node throughput (Mbps) Spectral eciency
(bps/Hz/Macro cell area)

7.4 7.4 0.74 0.12 0.53 2.7

8.0
(8%)

Conguration 1

Reference case

8.6
(16%)

9.3
(26%)

7.5 0.28 0.8

(8%)

7.1 0.79 0.86

(16%)

6.1 1.6 0.93

(26%)

5 % UE throughput (Mbps) 50 % UE throughput (Mbps) 95 % UE throughput (Mbps)

0.14
(17%)

0.28
(130%)

1.0
(730%)

0.72
(36%)

1.4
(160%)

3.3
(520%)

7.4
(170%)

8.7
(220%)

8.8
(230%)

Table 6.4: Uplink throughput. The numbers in the parentheses are the gains compared to the reference case.

750000

9 8 Throughput (bps) 7 6 5 4
160000

710000 0

3
790000

610000 0

740000

0 800000

2 1
0 280000

Low power node

Macro

Macro cell area

Figure 6.2: Average uplink cell throughput per cell. Low power cells If RSRP cell association is used the UEs will connect to the base station from which they get the strongest signal from. A macro eNB is in general placed at a

860000

10

x 10

Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

0 930000

Uplink Cell Throughput Averages

0

46

Chapter 6. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations

high altitude, on a mast or on the top of a building. A low power node, on the other hand, is located on street level where the signal suers larger attenuation compared to the signal from a macro base station. The path loss for low power nodes is therefore modeled with a larger attenuation factor than a macro eNB. This aects the size of the low power node cell. The size of the low power node cell also depends on the distance from the macro base station as seen in gure 6.3. The low power node to the left in the gure is larger than the one to the right.
60

80 Path gain (dB)

100

120

140 Macro eNB Low power eNb 160 300 200 100 0 Distance (m) 100 200 300

Figure 6.3: Path loss from one macro eNB and two low power nodes. The cell borders are marked with vertical lines. A low power node cell close to a macro eNB is small and will absorb few UEs while a low power node on the edge of a macro cell will be larger and absorb more UEs. Figure 6.4 shows a CDF of the cell throughput for the low power cells. We can see the eect of having low power node cells of dierent sizes. In the high percentiles are low power nodes that have absorbed many UEs, i.e. located on the edge of the macro cell, while those low power nodes in the low percentiles are those close to the macro eNB. When many UEs are located in the hot zone, such as in conguration 4b, more UEs are connected to the low power nodes and the cell throughput increases. Macro cells The macro cell throughput, seen in gure 6.5, shows the eect of the low power nodes ooading dierent amounts of trac. Macro cells which are ooaded much trac by their low power cells are seen in the low percentiles. Macro cells with low power nodes close to the macro base stations are not ooaded a lot and will be having higher throughput and seen in the high percentiles. Macro cell area throughput In gure 6.6 the macro cell area throughput is seen. The macro cell area throughput is the sum of the macro cell throughput and the two low power nodes throughput. It can be observed that in case the UEs are clustering around the low power nodes the macro cell area throughput is increased, meaning more of

6.2. Uplink results

Uplink Cell Throughput Low power nodes 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Throughput (bps) 2.5 Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 3 3.5 x 10
6

47

Figure 6.4: CDF - average uplink low power node cell throughput.
Uplink Cell Throughput Macro cells 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 3 4 5 6 7 Throughput (bps) 8 Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 9 10 x 10
6

Figure 6.5: CDF - average uplink macro cell throughput.

the oered trac gets through the system, this from the ooading of the heavy loaded macro cell. When the simulator clusters the UEs it randomly selects UEs which are placed in the hot zones. Which hot zone the UEs are placed in is choosen randomly and UEs might end up in a dierent cell due to the clustering. This eect is seen in the lower percentiles in gure 6.6 where some cells gets lower throughput due to that UEs has been moved to other cells.

48

Chapter 6. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations

Uplink Cell Throughput Macro cell area 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 4 6 8 10 Throughput (bps) 12 Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 14 x 10
6

Figure 6.6: CDF - average uplink macro cell area throughput.

6.2.3

Interference

Figure 6.7 is showing the average interference received by the base stations. The interference is calculated with equation 5.2.

Interference Received by Base Stations Averages

89.8

92.4

91.4

91

90

97.4

97.6

Interference (dBm)

98.7

100

110

102

97.4

93.9

120

Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b Low power node Macro Macro cell area

130

Figure 6.7: Time average uplink interference per PRB per cell.

92.6

6.2. Uplink results Low power nodes

49

The major interferer to low power nodes are surrounding macro UEs. For the low power nodes there are two eects competing. As the UEs gets handed over to the low power nodes there are going to be fewer macro UEs and therefore less interference. The low power nodes are not covering the whole hot zone. This means that as the UEs cluster in the hot zone more UEs are going to be located just outside the low power node cells and cause heavy interference. The fairly stable interference levels between the dierent cases indicate that the two eects are more or less cancelling each other. Macro eNB The interference received at the macro eNB decreases as the clustering factor, photzone , increases. Interference to macro eNBs are coming from UEs in neighboring cells and UEs in the own low power node cells. By clustering there will be more low power node UEs interfering the macro eNB. At the same time there is also a reduction of interference from the neighboring cells where previous macro UEs are handed over to the low power node and therefore will interfere less due to lower transmit power. The created interference to a macro eNB by handing over UEs to its own low power node is compensated for by the reduction of interference from neighboring cells. Macro cell area In the right part of gure 6.7 the interference averaged over all base stations is shown. It can be concluded that the interference increases when deploying low power nodes. The average is higher because of the high interference to low power nodes.

6.2.4

SINR

Assuming constant noise over time the SINR depends on signal strength and interference. The signal strength depends on the path loss. Low power node UEs The SINR for the UEs connected to the low power nodes is shown in gure 6.8. It is found that the SINR for the UEs is not deviating a lot as the UEs cluster to dierent degrees and for most UEs kept above 5 dB. Macro UEs The SINR for the UEs connected to the macro eNBs is shown in gure 6.9. A gain is seen as the UEs cluster. Partially this is due to the reduced interference and partially due to that the UEs absorbed by the low power nodes is no longer included in this CDF. Since the low power cells are bigger when located on the edge of the macro cell there will be more macro edge UEs absorbed by the low

50

Chapter 6. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations

Uplink UE SINR Low power node UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 5 0 5 10 SINR (dB) 15 20 25 Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

Figure 6.8: CDF - average low power node uplink UE SINR. power nodes. The absorbed UEs are removed from this CDF and we therefore see a gain of the SINR in the lower end of the gure.
Uplink UE SINR Macro UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 5 0 5 10 SINR (dB) 15 20 Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

Figure 6.9: CDF - average macro uplink UE SINR. Aside from the UEs who are put in the hot zones intentionally, due to the clustering factor, the UEs will have the same location in all simulations. To further see that the center UEs are not absorbed a CDF with the distance from the macro eNBs to their UEs is shown in gure 6.10. We see that the UEs close to the macro eNB is not handed over while those further away are seen to be

6.2. Uplink results absorbed by the low power nodes.

51

1 Ref Conf 4b 0.8

0.6 CDF 0.4 0.2 0 0

50

100 150 200 250 300 Macro eNB to macro UE distance (m)

350

Figure 6.10: CDF - distance from macro eNBs to their macro UEs.

All UEs A CDF including all UEs is found in gure 6.11. An overall SINR increase is seen as the UEs cluster around the low power nodes. The gain in 50 percentile is 0.69 dB, 2.43 dB and 4.67 dB in conguration 1, 4a and 4b respectively.
Uplink UE SINR All UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 5 0 5 10 15 SINR (dB) 20 25 30 Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

Figure 6.11: CDF - average uplink UE SINR including all UEs.

52

Chapter 6. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations

6.2.5

UE Throughput

To get high UE throughput a high SINR is needed at the same time as there has to be sucient PRBs available. We have seen that this system is heavy loaded and we can expect the PRB to UE ratio to become a problem. Low power node UEs Figure 6.12 shows a CDF for the throughput of UEs connected to the low power nodes. In gure 6.8 it was seen that the SINR was almost the same for all congurations. In the throughput we see a drop of throughput as the low power nodes cluster, this due to fewer PRBs per UE in the low power node as more UEs get absorbed.
UE throughput Low power node UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Throughput (bps) 10 Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 12 14 x 10
6

Figure 6.12: CDF - average uplink low power node UE throughput.

Macro UEs The macro PRB utilization in the macro eNB, table 6.2, is very high. When the system is this congested there are not much bandwidth resources available and the UE throughput is limited by the available PRBs. When UEs gets handed over to the low power nodes the PRB per UE ratio increases in the macro cell and the UE gets higher throughput, see gure 6.13. All UEs Figure 6.14 shows the CDF for the UE throughput including all UEs in the system. Comparing the reference case with conguration 1 we see that the gain is small when adding low power nodes to a system with uniform UE distribution.

6.3. Downlink results

UE throughput Macro UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Throughput (bps) 10 Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 12 14 x 10
6

53

Figure 6.13: CDF - average uplink macro UE throughput.

UE uplink throughput All UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Throughput (bps) 10 Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 12 14 x 10
6

Figure 6.14: CDF - average uplink UE throughput including all UEs.

6.3

Downlink results

In this section the performance for downlink performance is discussed. For downlink transmissions each UE downloads one FTP packet according to the trac model in section 6.1.3.

54

Chapter 6. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations

6.3.1

Performance overview

In table 6.5 are the FTP download times in downlink shown. The gures in table 6.5 are approximates because the simulator logs the delay only for UEs which nish their upload. Therefore the actual delays are expected to be longer than stated in the table. Conguration 4b 3.32 3.88 2.22 95.4 % 95.4 % 96.3% Conguration 4a 7.39 8.55 2.41 85.5 % 85.5 % 96.5 % Conguration 1 13.6 14.6 2.42 71.8 % 71.8 % 97.3 %

Average UE lifetime (s) Average macro UE lifetime (s) Average LPN UE lifetime (s) Finished upload Finished upload macro Finished upload LPN

17.2 17.2 64.4 % 64.4 % -

Table 6.5: FTP download time.

Below, in table 6.6, the downlink throughput has been compiled. In the reference case it can be seen that the throughput is very low for many UEs. When low power nodes are introduced the throughput gets somewhat higher, but only when the UE cluster around the low power nodes a meaningful gain is seen.

6.3.2

Cell throughput

In gure 6.15 the downlink cell through is shown. The same eects are applying for downlink as for uplink. The downlink cell throughput is overall higher than the uplink cell throughput. Low power nodes The low power cell throughput in downlink is similar to that of the uplink. See gure 6.16. Macro eNBs Also the macro cell throughput for downlink is similar to the uplink. See gure 6.17. Macro cell area throughput It naturally follows that the macro cell area throughput is also similar to that of uplink. See gure 6.18.

Reference case

6.3. Downlink results Conguration 4b Conguration 4a

55

Macro cell area throughput (Mbps) Macro cell throughput (Mbps) Low power node throughput (Mbps) Spectral eciency
(bps/Hz/Macro cell area)

7.9 7.9 0.79 0.14 0.69 5.8

8.6
(9%)

Conguration 1

Reference case

9.1
(15%)

9.5
(20%)

8.0 0.27 0.86

(9%)

7.5 0.79 0.91

(15%)

6.3 1.6 0.95

(20%)

5 % UE throughput (Mbps) 50 % UE throughput (Mbps) 95 % UE throughput (Mbps)

0.19
(36%)

0.48
(240%)

1.7
(1100%)

1.1
(60%)

2.7
(290%)

6.1
(780%)

8.5
(47%)

11
(90%)

13
(120%)

Table 6.6: Downlink throughput. The numbers in the parentheses are the gains compared to the reference case.
0 800000

Throughput (bps)

7 6 5 4
160000

3
790000

630000

750000

790000

0 860000

10

2 1
0 270000

Low power node

Macro

Macro cell area

Figure 6.15: Average cell throughput.

6.3.3

SINR

SINR in downlink is the signal power the UEs receive from the base station they are connected to divided by the signal power from other base stations presented

0 910000

x 10

Downlink Cell Throughput Averages

0

Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

0 950000

56

Chapter 6. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations

Downlink Cell Throughput Low power node cells 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Throughput (bps) 2.5 Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 3 3.5 x 10
6

Figure 6.16: CDF - average downlink low power node cell throughput.
Downlink Cell Throughput Macro cells 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 3 4 5 6 7 Throughput (bps) 8 Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 9 10 x 10
6

Figure 6.17: CDF - average downlink macro cell throughput.

in dB. In this section the SINR for the low power node UEs and macro UEs are rst shown in separate CDFs and then a CDF containing all UEs. Low power node UEs The simulator used can not provide measurements of the downlink interference. Since the average distance from the base stations to the UEs is the same for the dierent congurations so is the average path loss. The SINR then follows from

6.3. Downlink results

Downlink Cell Throughput Macro cell area 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 4 6 8 10 Throughput (bps) 12 Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 14 x 10
6

57

Figure 6.18: CDF - average downlink macro cell area throughput.

the interference. The SINR for the low power node UEs is seen in gure 6.19. The macro base station will use strong transmit power in order to reach the edge UEs. The fewer macro UEs there are the less interference is expected to the low power node UEs.
Downlink UE SINR Low power node UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 10 0 10 20 SINR (dB) 30 40 50 Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

Figure 6.19: CDF - average low power node downlink UE SINR.

58 Macro UEs

Chapter 6. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations

Also for the macro UEs the average distance, and therefore the path loss, to the macro eNB is unchanged as the UEs cluster. The SINR for the macro UEs then depend on their received interference. See gure 6.20. The interference to macro UEs comes from neighboring cells with their low power nodes and also the low power nodes in the own cell. As more UEs gets handed over to the low power nodes the interference to the macro UEs from the low power nodes increase. At the same time, the interference from neighboring cells decreases when the low power nodes absorb edge UEs. From a macro UEs point of view; the strongest interference comes from the neighboring macro eNB when it communicates with its edge UEs. If the edge UEs can get absorbed by the low power nodes the heavy interference is reduced. Explained in gure 6.3 the low power node cells at the edge of the macro cell are larger than those close to the macro eNB. This means that that there are a larger proportion of edge UEs that will be absorbed compared to UEs close to the macro eNB.
Downlink UE SINR Macro UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 10 0 10 20 30 SINR (dB) 40 50 60 Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

Figure 6.20: CDF - average macro downlink UE SINR.

All UEs A CDF for all UEs in the system is seen in gure 6.21. In all cases with low power nodes has higher SINR compared to the reference case. The gain is small when the UEs are not clustered but as the UEs cluster more the gain increases. The gain in 50 percentile is 0.32 dB, 1.45 dB and 4.08 dB in conguration 1, 4a and 4b respectively.

6.3. Downlink results

Downlink UE SINR All UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 10 0 10 20 30 SINR (dB) 40 50 60 Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

59

Figure 6.21: CDF - average downlink UE SINR including all UEs.

6.3.4

UE Throughput

Also in downlink the throughput is expected to be limited by the PRB to UE ratio as more UEs had no SINR problems.

Low power node UEs A CDF for the low power node UEs throughput is found in gure 6.22. The throughput is, as discussed, depending on the SINR and the available bandwidth resources. We know that the number of UEs connecting to the low power nodes is small and the delays are low, see table 6.2 and 6.5. This implies that there are few occasions when there are more than one UE connected to a low power node at one time. The throughput for the low power node UEs therefore follows from the SINR shown in gure 6.19.

Macro UEs A CDF for the throughput for the macro UEs is shown in gure 6.23. We have seen, in gure 6.20, that the downlink SINR is not low in any of the congurations. For the macro UE throughput there is an apparent problem. Aside from when the UEs are strongly clustered the UE throughput is low for many UEs. The low throughput is due to congestions in the macro cell.

All UEs In gure 6.24 is a CDF including all UEs throughput.

60

Chapter 6. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations

UE downlink throughput Low power node UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Throughput (bps) 10 Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 12 14 x 10
6

Figure 6.22: CDF - average downlink low power node UE throughput.

UE downlink throughput Macro UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Throughput (bps) 10 Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 12 14 x 10
6

Figure 6.23: CDF - average downlink macro UE throughput.

6.4

Summary

The performance of the system depended on the distribution of the UEs. In table 6.7 the gains compared to the reference case is compiled.

6.5. Conclusions
UE downlink throughput All UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Throughput (bps) 10 Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 12 14 x 10
6

61

Figure 6.24: CDF - average downlink UE throughput including all UEs. Conguration 1 Conguration 4b +26 % +20 % +4,8 dB +2.77 dB +4.18 dB +400 % +370 % Conguration 4a +16 % +15 % +6 dB +1.38 dB +1.46 dB +200 % +180 %

Uplink Cell throughput Downlink Cell throughput Uplink interference Uplink SINR Downlink SINR Uplink UE throughput Downlink UE throughput

+8 % +9 % +3.5 dB +0.44 dB +0.34 dB +63 % +57 %

Table 6.7: Gains from adding low power nodes in the dierent congurations compared to the reference case.

6.5

Conclusions

Simulations of the congurations dened by 3GPP in [9] shows that introducing low power nodes achieves gains in all congurations. The gain mainly comes from the ooading the heavy loaded macro base stations. The more the UEs are clustering around the low power nodes the higher gain is seen. In the case when the UEs are uniformly distributed (conguration 1) the low power nodes are not absorbing many UEs and the gain is low (8 % and 9 % in uplink and downlink respectively). When the UEs are clustering around the low power nodes the gain increases (26 % and 20 % in uplink and

62

Chapter 6. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations

downlink respectively in conguration 4b). Low power nodes receive strong interference from surrounding macro UEs. This increase in interference is compensated for by lower path loss and the SINR is still higher for the low power node UEs compared to macro UEs. The macro base stations get less interference when more UEs are absorbed by the low power nodes; -97.6 dBm in conguration 1 and -102 dBm in conguration 4b. This because the interference from UEs on the macro cell edge in neighboring cells are reduced when the low power nodes absorb them. We see overall better system performance when low power nodes are added. As seen in the summary, the gain is relatively small when the UE distribution is uniform but when more UEs are clustering around the low power nodes the gain is higher.

Chapter 7

Analysis of 3GPP system congurations - Low load

In chapter 6 it has been investigated dierent congurations of heterogeneous networks. It was investigated how deployment of low power nodes impacts the performance when the UEs were clustering around the low power nodes to dierent degrees under heavy user load. In case of uniform UE distribution the gain was small. To further see the value of deploying low power nodes in a network where the UEs are uniformly distributed another study has been carried out with the same set up as in chapter 6 but with lower load.

7.1

Simulation details

The details of the simulated systems are described in the coming sections.

7.1.1

Congurations

In this study only conguration 1 has been compared to the reference case. Details are found in section 6.1.1.

7.1.2

System parameters

The system parameters are the same as in chapter 5.

7.1.3

Trac model

The trac model is the same as in chapter 5 with the following parameters: : 7.77 UEs/s system wide. (0.37 UE/s/Cell) FTP packet size: 2 MByte The trac model will generate the following oered trac. 124 Mbps system wide. 63

64 Chapter 7. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations - Low load 5.92 Mbps per macro cell area. Simulation time is 100 seconds during which 744 UEs was created, i.e. 7.44 UEs / second.

7.1.4

User distribution

The user distribution and the macro PRB utilization is found in table 7.1. Conguration 1 Low load Reference case High load 95 % 93 % Conguration 1 High load 6% 94 % 91 % Reference case Low load UEs connected to LPN Macro uplink PRB utilization Macro downlink PRB utilization 70 % 52 %

6% 65 % 46 %

Table 7.1: User distribution between macro eNB and low power nodes and macro PRB utilization.

7.2

Results

In the following section conguration 1 will be compared with the reference case. The results from the study with the high load trac model are displayed in parallel as comparison.

7.2.1
Uplink

SINR

The average uplink UE SINR is seen in gure 7.1 and in table 7.2. Adding low power nodes gives great gains in SINR for those UEs who connect to them, UEs which are absorbed by the low power nodes gets a gain of 5.04 dB and 5.45 dB in the low and high load case respectively. The UEs which are not absorbed by the low power nodes also get a higher SINR but the gain is lower; 0.31 dB and 0.12 dB in the low and high load case respectively. Averaging the gain over all UEs gives a gain of 0.59 dB and 0.44 dB. Downlink In downlink the SINR gain for the UEs is also small. The average gain in UE SINR in downlink is 1 dB and 0.34 dB in the low and high load case respectively. See gure 7.2 and table 7.3.

7.2. Results
Uplink UE SINR Averages
16 14 12

65

13.3

SINR (dB)

8.26

8.57

7.17

8.26

8.85

10 8 6 4 2 0

12.5

7.05

Low power node UEs

Macro UEs

All UEs

Figure 7.1: Average uplink SINR per UE. Conguration 1 Reference case

Low load High load

8.26 dB 7.06 dB

8.85 dB 7.50 dB

0.59 dB 0.44 dB

Table 7.2: Average uplink SINR per UE.

Conguration 1

Reference case

Low load High load

11.6 dB 7.82 dB

12.6 dB 8.16 dB

1 dB 0.34 dB

Table 7.3: Average downlink SINR per UE.

7.2.2

Cell throughput

One reason for adding low power nodes is to create gains by ooading the macro eNBs. When the UEs are uniformly distributed high ooading is hard to achieve.

Gain

Gain

7.06

Ref Low C1 Low Ref High C1 High

7.5

66 Chapter 7. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations - Low load

Downlink UE SINR Averages
16 14 12

13.5

12.5

SINR (dB)

10 8 6 4 2 0

9.07

11.6

11.6

12.6

8.11

7.82

Low power node UEs

Macro UEs

All UEs

Figure 7.2: Average downlink SINR per UE.

Uplink Only six percent of the UEs connected to the low power nodes in conguration 1. This low ooading suggests only a small gain in served trac. In gure 7.3 and table 7.4 we see that in the simulations there was no gain in the low load case and 8 percent gain in the high load case. Worth noting is that in the low load case almost 100 % of the oered trac is served.
6

750000

9 8 7 Throughput (bps) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

540000

580000 0

580000

190000

Ref Low C1 Low Ref High C1 High

0

270000

Low power node

Macro

Macro cell area

Figure 7.3: Average uplink cell throughput per cell.

740000

0 800000

x 10

Uplink Cell Throughput Averages

7.82

Ref Low C1 Low Ref High C1 High

8.16

7.2. Results Reference case Conguration 1

67

Low load High load

5.8 Mbps 7.4 Mbps

5.8 Mbps 8 Mbps

0% 8%

Table 7.4: Average uplink cell throughput per cell.

Downlink Similar to uplink, the downlink shows a no gain in served trac in the low load case while a gain of 9 % when the system is has a high load. See gure 7.4 and table 7.5. Also in downlink almost all oered trac is served in the low load case.
9 8
0 800000

Gain
0 580000 580000 0

7 Throughput (bps) 6 5 4 3 2 1
0 180000 270000

540000

Ref Low C1 Low Ref High C1 High

0

Low power node

Macro

Macro cell area

Figure 7.4: Average downlink cell throughput per cell.

7.2.3
Uplink

UE Throughput

For heavy loaded systems the average UE throughput is low due to congestion. The low power nodes are only ooading six percent of the UEs but which still gives a high percentage gain; see gure 7.5 and table 7.6. Even if a high percentage gain of 63 % is seen in the highly loaded case the macro cells are still congested and the throughput is low. We see a gain in UE throughput of 18 % even though there was no gain in cell throughput in the low load case. This means that all oered trac is

790000

x 10

Downlink Cell Throughput Averages

0

860000

68 Chapter 7. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations - Low load Reference case Conguration 1

Low load High load

5.8 Mbps 7.9 Mbps

5.8 Mbps 8.6 Mbps

0% 9%

Table 7.5: Average downlink cell throughput per cell.

served in the low load case and deploying low power nodes will only increase the throughput for the UEs, not the cells.
0
6

8 7 6

Throughput (bps)

780000

810000

x 10

Uplink UE Throughput Averages

0 380000

5 4 3

340000

340000

0 400000 0
All UEs

Gain 18 % 63 % Gain
860000 140000 0

1 0

Ref Low C1 Low Ref High C1 High

Low power node UEs

Macro UEs

Figure 7.5: Average uplink UE throughput per UE.

860000

100000

Low load High load

3.4 Mbps 0.86 Mbps

4.0 Mbps 1.4 Mbps

Table 7.6: Average uplink UE throughput per UE.

Conguration 1

Reference case

7.3. Conclusions Downlink

69

The downlink UE throughput, as the uplink UE throughput, gets higher when adding low power nodes. See gure 7.6 and table 7.7. In case of a heavy loaded system the percentage gain is high but the ooading is not high enough to give high throughput for the macro UEs. When the system has a lower load and the macro cells are less congested the presence of low power nodes are not highly noticeable.
950000 0
10 9 8 7 x 10
6

Downlink UE Throughput Averages

0 770000

0 670000

Throughput (bps)

6 5 4

620000

620000

0 690000
All UEs

0 140000 0 180000

3 2 1 0

Ref Low C1 Low Ref High C1 High

Low power node UEs

Macro UEs

Figure 7.6: Average downlink UE throughput per UE.

Conguration 1

Reference case

Low load High load

6.2 Mbps 1.4 Mbps

6.9 Mbps 2.2 Mbps

11 % 57 %

Table 7.7: Average downlink UE throughput per UE.

7.3

Conclusions

In this chapter conguration 1 with two low power nodes has been compared to the reference case. In the previous chapter it was seen that the gain from introducing low power nodes in a heavy loaded system with uniform UE distribution gave low gain in the system throughput. The gain was low because the

Gain

140000

0 220000 0

70 Chapter 7. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations - Low load low power node was not able to ooad many UEs from the macro cell. The low power nodes absorbed 6 % of the UEs. This study has shown that when the system load is lower there is no increase in served trac from introducing low power nodes. This is natural because when the macro cell is not heavy loaded ooading is not necessary. The UE throughput was also compared and we see that the when the system load was high the UE throughput was very low in the reference case. By introducing two low power nodes there was a high percentage gain in UE throughput of 63 % and 57 % in uplink and downlink respectively. This shows that in a heavy loaded system a small ooading can give a high percentage gain in UE throughput. When the system load was lower the UE throughput gain from adding low power nodes was also lower; 18 % and 11% in uplink and downlink respectively.

Chapter 8

Analysis of 3GPP system congurations - Range extension

There is a way to compromise between uplink and downlink performance. If we want to optimize downlink performance the UEs should be assigned to the base stations from which the highest power is received (RSRP based cell association). If uplink performance should be optimized the UEs should be assigned to the base station to which the path loss is lowest (path loss based cell association). To compromise between the two extremes the range can be extended by using RSRP cell association with an oset for the low power nodes. If the oset is zero the UEs are connecting to the base station which gives highest received power, i.e. best downlink performance. As the oset is increased a cell association closer to path loss based cell association is approached.

8.1

Simulation details

The details of the simulated systems are described in the coming sections.

8.1.1

Congurations

The congurations simulated is the same as in chapter 6.

8.1.2

System parameters

The system parameters are the same as in chapter 5.

8.1.3

Trac model

The trac model is the same as in chapter 6. 71

72

Chapter 8. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations - Range extension

8.1.4

User distribution

In the dierent congurations photzone , i.e. the clustering factor is changed. As photzone increases more UEs are placed in the hot zones and more UEs are therefore connecting to the low power nodes. The cell association oset is also increasing the number of UEs connecting to the low power nodes by extending the cell range. The distribution of UEs between macro eNBs and low power nodes is shown in gure 8.1 and table 8.1. As expected the coverage of the hot zones is increasing with range extension, from below 50 % to below 100 %.
UE distributions

1500 Number of UEs

1000

500 Macro UEs Low power node UEs 0

Ref Conf 1 f 1 RE onf 4a 4a RE onf 4b 4b RE f f C C Con Con Con

Figure 8.1: User distribution between macro eNB and low power nodes in conguration 1, 4a and 4b with and without 8 dB range extension.

8.2
8.2.1

Results
Cell Throughput

When increasing the RSRP osets both the uplink and downlink macro cell area throughput increases. This because the heavy loaded macro eNBs gets ooaded and more data can get through the system. See gure 8.2. The highest gain in macro cell area throughput is seen in conguration 1, 0.8 Mbps and 0.6 Mbps in cell throughput gain in uplink and downlink respectively. The reason for the higher gain in conguration 1 compared to conguration 4b is due to that a high percentage of the oered trac is served in conguration 4b and an increase is not as easy to achieve as in conguration 1.

8.2.2

Interference

The uplink interference is seen in gure 8.3. As described in section 4.2.1, macro UEs interfere the low power nodes. The closer the macro UEs are to the low power nodes the stronger the interference gets. In case the low power node is close to the macro cell edge the surrounding macro UEs are using high transmit power to reach the macro eNB and the low power node gets strong interference.

8.2. Results

73

0 860000

0 800000

800000

750000

Throughput (bps)

6 5 4
160000

Throughput (bps)

610000

7 6 5 4
160000

3
790000

3 Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

0 790000

630000

710000

740000

750000

790000

0 860000

10

10

2
280000

2 1
0 270000

1
0

Low power node

Macro

Macro cell area

Low power node

Macro

Macro cell area

(a) Uplink 0 dB oset

0 960000 0 930000

(b) Downlink 0 dB oset

0

0 910000 940000

x 10

0 930000

Uplink Cell Throughput Averages

x 10

Downlink Cell Throughput Averages

0

Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

0 880000

10 9

x 10

10 9 8 Throughput (bps) 7 6 5 4 3

x 10

8 Throughput (bps) 7 6 5
0

720000

740000

760000

580000

590000

360000

4 3
810000

180000

0 300000

1
0

1 0
0

790000

Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b Macro Macro cell area

180000

0 300000

360000

790000

0 920000

Uplink Cell Throughput Averages

Downlink Cell Throughput Averages

Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

0

Low power node

Low power node

Macro

Macro cell area

(c) Uplink 8 dB oset

(d) Downlink 8 dB oset

Figure 8.2: Average cell throughput per cell.

960000

0 950000

74

Chapter 8. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations - Range extension Conguration 4b RE 72 % 61 % 85 % 41 % 24 % Conguration 4a RE 37 % 35 % 95 % 78 % 55 %

Conguration 1 RE

UEs in hot zones UEs connected to LPN LPN coverage of hot zones Macro uplink PRB utilization Macro downlink PRB utilization

95 % 93 %

6% 94 % 91 %

16 % 92 % 82 %

37 % 18 % 49 % 90 % 80 %

Conguration 4a

Conguration 1

Reference

72 % 34 % 47 % 77 % 57 %

Table 8.1: User distributions and macro PRB utilization.

When the UEs are clustering inside the hot zone more of them are going to be absorbed by the low power node. As a result there are fewer macro UEs which can cause interference. At the same time, when no oset is used the low power cells are not covering the whole hot zone meaning that there will be many macro UEs surrounding the low power nodes. In conguration 1 there will be few macro UEs residing just outside the low power node cell but there will be many macro UEs in total. In conguration 4a there are fewer macro UEs in total but the number of macro UEs surrounding the low power nodes is higher. The sum of these two eects is that the interference is increased. In conguration 4b the number of macro UEs is even lower and even though there is more surrounding macro UEs the total interference is lower than in conguration 4a. The macro UEs surrounding the low power nodes can be absorbed by extending the range of the low power cells so that they cover the whole hot zone. When the whole hot zone is covered the interference to the low power nodes gets lower the more UEs are placed in the hot zones. In conguration 1 the low power nodes receive -96.3 dBm while in conguration 4b the corresponding number is -102 dBm. The interference to the macro base stations comes partially from low power node UEs partially from neighboring cells. The interference from the neighboring cells comes primarily from the macro UEs. As macro UEs gets absorbed by the low power nodes the interference from the neighboring cell gets lower. At the same time UEs in the own cell will be handed over to low power nodes and interference is created. The sum of these two eects is seen to result in less interference. Naturally, range extension will then reduce the interference to the macro eNBs. The downlink interference has not been obtained in these simulations.

Conguration 4b

8.2. Results

75

Interference Received by Base Stations Averages

89.8

92.4

91.4 99.4

91

90

97.4

97.6

Interference (dBm)

98.7

100

110

102

97.4

93.9

120

Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

Low power node Macro Macro cell area

130

(a) Uplink 0 dB oset

Interference Received by Base Stations Averages

90
96.3 97.4 98.6 98.1 97.4 96.8

Interference (dBm)

102

102

100

110

106

120

Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

Low power node Macro Macro cell area

130

(b) Uplink 8 dB oset

Figure 8.3: Time average uplink interference per PRB per cell.

103

92.6

76

Chapter 8. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations - Range extension

8.2.3

SINR

The SINR depends on the interference and the received signal power. As fading has been removed in these simulations the received signal power depends on distance from the UEs to the serving eNB. Averages The average SINR is seen in gure 8.4. Uplink For the low power nodes, expanding the range leads to a greater average distance to their served UEs. In conguration 1 the SINR is seen to decrease with 2 dB due to a greater path loss which the decrease in interference does not compensate for. For the more clustered cases the interference reduction is larger and the SINR is kept stable. The average distance from macro eNB to macro UE is not aected by an extended range which makes the average macro SINR increase as the interference decrease. The average SINR for all UEs is seen to increase with 0.41 dB, 1.19 dB and 1.77 dB in conguration 1, 4a and 4b respectively when range extension is applied. Downlink The low power node UEs receives interference when the macro eNB is transmitting to its UEs. The interference received by the low power nodes is related to the PRB utilization in the macro cells in table 8.1. High PRB utilization in the macro cell gives high interference to the low power nodes and low PRB utilization in the macro cell gives low interference to the low power nodes. Without range extension, gure 8.4b, the SINR is higher in all congurations compared to the reference case. Range extension will make the low power nodes absorb UEs further away from the base station. The range is extended with 8 dB and therefore the edge UEs will have 8 dB higher path loss in the range extended case and the low output power of the low power nodes will not be able to support the edge UEs with high SINR in conguration 1 and 4a, while in conguration 4b the interference is reduced enough to increase the SINR for the low power node UEs. See gure 8.4d. For the macro UEs, the SINR is seen to increase for all congurations when the range is extended. Once again, the average distance from the macro eNB to the macro UEs is unchanged when the range is extended meaning that the increase in SINR for the macro UEs is due to interference reduction. The average SINR is reduced in conguration 1 but increased in conguration 4a and 4b. Low power node UEs Uplink In gure 8.5a and gure 8.5c the uplink SINR is shown without range extension and with 8 dB range extension. In both graphs the lower end of the CDF are the edge UEs while in the higher end of the graph has the UEs close to the low power node. Adding an oset, gure 8.5c, will make the low power node absorb UE which are further away from the base station. The UEs in the range extended region are having a large distance to the base station

8.2. Results

77

Uplink UE SINR Averages

Downlink UE SINR Averages

20

20

12.5

12.5

12.8

15

15

SINR (dB)

SINR (dB)

12.5

11.7

9.83

8.32

8.44

7.82

8.11

7.17

7.59

7.05

7.06

7.5

Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

7.82

8.16

10

10

9.07

9.14

Low power node UEs

Macro UEs

All UEs

Low power node UEs

Macro UEs

All UEs

(a) Uplink 0 dB oset

Uplink UE SINR Averages

(b) Downlink 0 dB oset

Downlink UE SINR Averages

18.5

20

20

9.28
Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

10

12.6

12.9

15

15

14.7

SINR (dB)

SINR (dB)

10.5

11.6

11.9

9.55

9.63

8.03

7.91

7.82

7.82

10

10

8.93

7.05

7.06

Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

7.35

7.4

7.77

Low power node UEs

Macro UEs

All UEs

Low power node UEs

1.87

Macro UEs

All UEs

(c) Uplink 8 dB oset

(d) Downlink 8 dB oset

Figure 8.4: Average SINR per UE.

10.3
Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

16.1

12

78

Chapter 8. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations - Range extension

Uplink UE SINR Low power node UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 5 0 5 10 SINR (dB) 15 20 25 CDF Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 10

Downlink UE SINR Low power node UEs Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

10

20 SINR (dB)

30

40

50

(a) Uplink 0 dB oset

Uplink UE SINR Low power node UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 5 0 5 10 SINR (dB) 15 20 25 CDF Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 10

(b) Downlink 0 dB oset

Downlink UE SINR Low power node UEs Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

10

20 SINR (dB)

30

40

50

(c) Uplink 8 dB oset

(d) Downlink 8 dB oset

Figure 8.5: CDF - average low power node UE SINR. meaning lower SINR. In conguration 1 the interference reduction will not be able to compensate for the further distance while in conguration 4a and 4b the interference reduction is higher and the SINR increases. For the UEs close to the low power node, in the upper part of the CDF, the interference is small compared to the signal power the base station receives and the interference has low impact on the SINR. Downlink In downlink we see that in conguration 1 and 4a many UEs are getting very low SINR when range extension is applied. In conguration 1 the PRB utilization in downlink is high which gives high interference. In conguration 4b the PRB utilization is lower and the interference is therefore lower. The high interference, in combination with large UE-to-base station distance gives low SINR for many UEs in conguration 1. In conguration 4b the interference is reduced enough to compensate for the longer UE to base station distance. Looking at the low power node UE SINR curves for uplink and downlink, gure 8.5a and 8.5b, we see that their shapes diers. In uplink the edge UEs

8.2. Results

79

suer more from the interference than the center UEs. In downlink all UEs suer more or less the same. The explanation for this will be seen in gure 8.6. The signal from the macro base station will be attenuated according to the green curve. The signal from the macro UE will be attenuated according to the blue curve.
20 Path gain (dB) 40 60 80 100 120 140 300 200 100 0 Distance (m) 100 200 300
Low power node

Macro eNB Macro UE

Low power node cell border

Low power node cell border

Figure 8.6: Path loss from macro eNB and macro UE. In uplink the interfering signals to the low power nodes comes from surrounding macro UEs. As we can see if gure 8.7 the signal from the macro UE will aect the low power node UE close to the cell border more than the low power node UE close to the low power node.
20 Path gain (dB) 40 60
Low power node cell border

Macro UE LPN UE

Low power node cell border Low power node

80 100 120 140 50 0 50 100 Distance (m) 150 200

Figure 8.7: Uplink interference from macro layer to low power node layer. In downlink the interfering signal comes from the macro eNB. As seen in gure 8.8 the attenuation of the signal is more uniform through the low power node cell and the UEs are aected more uniformly.
20 Path gain (dB) 40 60 80 100 120 140 250 200 150 100 50 0 Distance (m) 50 100 150 200 Macro eNB LPN UE
Low power node cell border Low power node cell border Low power node

Figure 8.8: Downlink interference from macro layer to low power node layer.

80

Chapter 8. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations - Range extension

Uplink UE SINR Macro UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 5 0 5 10 SINR (dB) 15 20 CDF Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 10 0 Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

Downlink UE SINR Macro UEs

10

20 30 SINR (dB)

40

50

60

(a) Uplink 0 dB oset

Uplink UE SINR Macro UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 5 0 5 10 SINR (dB) 15 20 CDF Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 10

(b) Downlink 0 dB oset

Downlink UE SINR Macro UEs Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

10

20 30 SINR (dB)

40

50

60

(c) Uplink 8 dB oset

(d) Downlink 8 dB oset

Figure 8.9: CDF - average macro UE SINR.

Macro UEs Uplink Comparing the SINR curves for the dierent congurations in gure 8.9a a gain is seen when the UEs cluster. The gain comes both from lower macro PRB utilization and that the absorbed UEs are removed from this CDF. When deploying a low power node on the edge of the macro cell it will be larger the further away from the macro eNB it is placed, see gure 6.3. This means that there is more cell edge macro UEs getting absorbed by the low power nodes than cell center macro UEs which results in the apparent gain in SINR for the edge macro UEs. With range extension, in gure 8.9c, the eects described above are simply getting stronger.

Downlink The same reasoning applies to downlink as for uplink for the macro SINR. See gure 8.9b and 8.9d

8.2. Results All UEs

81

In this section the trade o between uplink and downlink performance is seen when the range is extended. Uplink It is benecial for uplink transmission to let the UEs connect to the closest base station. With range extension this path loss based way of associate UEs with the base stations is approached and we see a SINR gain in uplink from gure 8.10a to 8.10c. A reduction of interference which follows from the lowered PRB utilization in the macro eNB will also contribute to higher SINR. Downlink For downlink transmission, RSRP cell association is optimal making the UEs connect to the base station from which they get the strongest signal. By adding osets the system is deviating from the RSRP cell association and we would expect reduced SINR in downlink. In gure 8.10d we see that 10 % and 7 % of the UEs have an SINR below zero in conguration 1 and 4a respectively. Those UEs are the ones in the range extended region of the low power nodes which has worse downlink condition to the low power nodes compared to the macro resulting in low SINR. Fifth percentile UE SINR This section shows the SINR for the fth percentile UEs. See gure 8.11. Uplink When the range is extended the uplink interference decreases for all congurations. The more the UEs cluster the larger the reduction is. Comparing the bars to the right in gure 8.11a and 8.11c a signicant SINR reduction of 4.06 dB is seen in conguration 1. In conguration 4a and 4b the SINR increases by 0.44 dB and 2.72 dB respectively as a result of lower interference in the system when the macro PRB utilization is reduced. Downlink In downlink the SINR is reduced by 3.5 dB and 1.75 dB when the range is extended in conguration 1 and 4a respectively. This reduction is a result of very low SINR for the edge low power node UEs which suered from high path loss. The interference reduction was not able to compensate for this reduction. In conguration 4b the interference reduction is much larger and compensates for the higher path loss.

8.2.4

UE Throughput

Low power node UEs A CDF for the low power node UE throughput is found in gure 8.12. Uplink The UE throughput depends on SINR and the number of available PRBs per UE in a cell. We saw that the low power node uplink SINR was more or less unchanged for the dierent congurations but since the low load node load is higher in conguration 4b the UE throughput is lower compared to the other congurations. When the range is extended the nodes absorb more UEs which means heavier load and the UE throughputs decrease. In conguration

82

Chapter 8. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations - Range extension

Uplink UE SINR All UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 5 0 5 10 15 SINR (dB) 20 25 30 CDF Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 10 0 Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

Downlink UE SINR All UEs

10

20 30 SINR (dB)

40

50

60

(a) Uplink 0 dB oset

Uplink UE SINR All UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 5 0 5 10 15 SINR (dB) 20 25 30 CDF Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 10

(b) Downlink 0 dB oset

Downlink UE SINR All UEs Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

10

20 30 SINR (dB)

40

50

60

(c) Uplink 8 dB oset

(d) Downlink 8 dB oset

Figure 8.10: CDF - average UE SINR including all UEs.

8.2. Results

83

Uplink UE SINR 5th Percentile

11 10 9

Downlink UE SINR 5th Percentile

6
Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

7.67

7.18

8 7

7.43

4 SINR (dB)

SINR (dB)

2.99

6 5 4 3

2.53

1.02

1.77

1.19

0.722

0.694

0.699

0.408

0.784

0.783

1.02

2 1

0.88

Low power node UEs

Macro UEs

All UEs

Low power node UEs

0.166

0.195

Macro UEs

0.195

All UEs

(a) Uplink 0 dB oset

Uplink UE SINR 5th Percentile
12

(b) Downlink 0 dB oset

Downlink UE SINR 5th Percentile
Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b
10 8 6

0.39

10

9.87

7.28

1.01
Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

7.56

SINR (dB)

SINR (dB)

2.59

0.195

0.195

2 0 2

0.851

2.85

4.49

2.44

0.694

0.879

0.627

0.694

0.77

1.46

Low power node UEs

Macro UEs

All UEs

Low power node UEs

7.5

3.47

Macro UEs

All UEs

(c) Uplink 8 dB oset

(d) Downlink 8 dB oset

Figure 8.11: 5 percentile SINR.

3.11

3.61

0.739

3.75

2.85

84

Chapter 8. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations - Range extension

UE throughput Low power node UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Throughput (bps) 10 Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 12 14 x 10
6

UE downlink throughput Low power node UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Throughput (bps) 10 Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 12 14 x 10
6

(a) Uplink 0 dB oset

UE throughput Low power node UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Throughput (bps) 10 Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 12 14 x 10
6

(b) Downlink 0 dB oset

UE downlink throughput Low power node UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Throughput (bps) 10 Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 12 14 x 10
6

(c) Uplink 8 dB oset

(d) Downlink 8 dB oset

Figure 8.12: CDF - average low power node UE throughput.

1 the SINR also decreased when the range was extended which will also reduce the UE throughput. Downlink Aside from fewer PRBs per UE in the low power nodes when the range is extended the SINR was also greatly reduced when the range is extended. This eect is clear when comparing gure 8.12b and 8.12d. In conguration 1 the loss in 50 percentile is 67 % and in conguration 4a 35 %, in conguration 4b the SINR gain is overcoming the higher load and there is no dierence in 50 percentile UE throughput. Macro UEs A CDF for the macro UE throughput is found in gure 8.13. Uplink The low UE throughput in the reference case which is seen in gure 8.13a is due to congestions in the macro layer. When the macro eNB is ooaded by the low power nodes the PRB per UE ratio is increasing giving higher UE throughput in the macro eNB. See gure 8.13c. When the UEs are uniformly

8.2. Results

85

UE throughput Macro UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Throughput (bps) 10 Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 12 14 x 10
6

UE downlink throughput Macro UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Throughput (bps) 10 Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 12 14 x 10
6

(a) Uplink 0 dB oset

UE throughput Macro UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Throughput (bps) 10 Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 12 14 x 10
6

(b) Downlink 0 dB oset

UE downlink throughput Macro UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Throughput (bps) 10 Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 12 14 x 10
6

(c) Uplink 8 dB oset

(d) Downlink 8 dB oset

Figure 8.13: CDF - average macro UE throughput. distributed, conguration 1, the gain of range extension is 64 %. In conguration 4a and 4b the macro UE throughput gain is 91 % and 100 % respectively. Downlink The same eect as in uplink also applies to downlink when the size of the low power node cells is increasing. The downlink UE throughput gain in 50 percentile from extending the range is 98 %, 152 % and 100 % in conguration 1, 4a and 4b respectively. All UEs A CDF including all UEs in the system is seen in gure 8.14. The gain in the 50 percentile uplink UE throughput is 80 %, 150 % and 91 % in conguration 1, 4a and 4b respectively. The corresponding gain in downlink is 82 %, 93 % and 48 %. Fifth percentile UE throughput This section shows the fth percentile of UE throughput. Worth noting is that the correlation between having the lowest SINR and the lowest throughput is

86

Chapter 8. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations - Range extension

UE uplink throughput All UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Throughput (bps) 10 Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 12 14 x 10
6

UE downlink throughput All UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Throughput (bps) 10 Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 12 14 x 10
6

(a) Uplink 0 dB oset

UE throughput All UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Throughput (bps) 10 Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 12 14 x 10
6

(b) Downlink 0 dB oset

UE downlink throughput All UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Throughput (bps) 10 Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b 12 14 x 10
6

(c) Uplink 8 dB oset

(d) Downlink 8 dB oset

Figure 8.14: CDF - average UE throughput including all UEs.

8.2. Results

87

not very strong. Figure 8.15 shows a system map over a system in conguration 4a. A legend to the gure is found in gure 8.16. It is seen that the UEs who have low SINR not necessary have low throughput and vice versa.
System map: Configuration 4a
800 600 400 200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Blue circle: SINR < 10% Red triangle: TP < 10%

Distance (m)

800

600

400

200 0 Distance (m)

200

400

600

800

Figure 8.15: Example of a system map for conguration 4a. The fth percentile UE throughput is found in gure 8.17.

Uplink From the CDF for the low power node UE throughput, gure 8.12, we see that there is some statistical uncertainty in the low percentiles but what is clear is that the UE throughput goes down in the low percentiles when the range is extended. For conguration 1 the increase in load is not as big as for the other congurations but there is also a drop in SINR which reduces the throughput. This is also seen when comparing gure 8.17a and 8.17c. The 5 percentile low power node UE throughput is reduced by 17 % and 19 % in conguration 1 and 4a respectively. The macro edge UEs will get increased throughput when the range is extended due to ooading of the macro layer.

Downlink Range extension clearly reduced the 5 percentile SINR in downlink in conguration 1 and 4a. This is also reected in their throughput comparing gure 8.17b and 8.17d. The 5 percentile downlink low power node UE throughput is reduced by 84 % and 54 % in conguration 1 and 4a respectively. As for uplink the macro edge UEs will get higher throughput in downlink when the macro layer is ooaded.

88

Chapter 8. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations - Range extension

(a) Macro eNB

(b) LPN

(c) Macro UE

(d) LPN UE

(e) Low SINR UE (f) Low throughput UE

Figure 8.16: Legend to gure 8.15.

0 480000

5 4.5 4 3.5 Throughput (bps) 3 2.5 2

x 10

470000

Uplink UE Throughput 5th Percentile

5 4.5 4

x 10

Downlink UE Throughput 5th Percentile

370000

290000

Throughput (bps)

3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

280000

280000

3.5

890000

1.5

100000

150000

260000

280000

1 0.5

Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b Low power node UEs

440000

140000

140000

190000

120000

120000

Low power node UEs

Macro UEs

All UEs

140000

Macro UEs

140000

All UEs

(a) Uplink 0 dB oset

x 10
6

(b) Downlink 0 dB oset

x 10
6

Uplink UE Throughput 5th Percentile

5

Downlink UE Throughput 5th Percentile

Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

5 4.5 4 3.5 Throughput (bps) 3 2.5 2

390000

390000

4.5 4

400000

190000

480000 150000 0 310000 0

310000

Throughput (bps)

250000

3 2.5

210000

290000

3.5

770000

910000

1.5 1 0.5 Ref Conf 1 Conf 4a Conf 4b

1.5 1 0.5 0

470000

130000

150000

200000

230000

140000

360000

120000

120000

Low power node UEs

Macro UEs

All UEs

Low power node UEs

Macro UEs

140000

All UEs

(c) Uplink 8 dB oset

(d) Downlink 8 dB oset

Figure 8.17: 5 percentile UE throughput.

370000

170000

8.3. Conclusions

89

8.2.5

Summary

We have seen dierent gains in dierent congurations. A summary of the gains which range extension brings to the system is found in table 8.2. Conguration 4a Conguration 1 Conguration 4b +3.2 % +1.1 % -10 dB +1.77 dB +4.1 dB +44 % +150 % +32 % +82 %

Avg. uplink cell throughput Avg. downlink cell throughput Uplink interference Avg. uplink SINR Avg. downlink SINR Avg. uplink UE throughput 5% uplink UE throughput Avg. downlink UE throughput 5% downlink UE throughput

+10 % +7.0 % -2.9 dB +0.41 dB -0.39 dB +71 % +64 % +41 % +95 %

+8.1 % +3.3 % -8.0 dB +1.19 dB +1.02 dB +69 % +230 % +51 % +210 %

Table 8.2: Gains from 8 dB range extension for the dierent congurations.

8.3

Conclusions

One reason for deploying low power nodes is to ooad the macro layer. To make the low power nodes absorb more UEs, hence make more ecient use of the low power nodes, an oset can be added in to them in the cell association algorithm. In this study we have seen that adding osets gives dierent gains depending on how the UEs are distributed. The highest percentage gain in cell throughput is seen in conguration 1 where the UEs are uniformly distributed. Also, the average UE throughput increased with 44 % to 71 % in uplink and 32 % to 51 % in downlink when the range was extended due to more ecient use of the bandwidth resources. When the range is extended UEs in the range extended region is forced to connect to the low power nodes even though they have a better link to the macro base station. This made the SINR for these UEs to go down and 10 % and 7 % of the UEs had an SINR below zero in conguration 1 and 4a respectively, even though the interference in the system is reduced when the range is extended. If the UEs in the range extended region could be protected from interference by an intercell interference mechanism their SINR is expected to increase. Even though there are some UEs suering from low SINR in some situations there is an overall gain in UE throughput by extending the range of the low power nodes in all congurations.

Chapter 9

Analysis of 3GPP system congurations - Multiple low power nodes

In chapter 7 the gain from adding two low power nodes to a system with uniform UE distribution was studied. Later in chapter 8 we saw the interference problems the low power node UEs in the range extended region had. In this chapter the studies in chapter 7 and 8 will be taken one step further. We will in this chapter see how adding more low power nodes to the system will aect the performance. How the deployment of low power nodes aects the spectral eciency will be shown and if interference between low power nodes creates problems.

9.1

Simulation details

The details of the simulated systems are described in the coming sections.

9.1.1

Congurations

The following congurations have been compared which complies with conguration 1 dened by 3GPP. No low power nodes. (Reference case) 2 low power nodes. 2 low power nodes with 8 dB range extension. 4 low power nodes. 4 low power nodes with 8 dB range extension. 6 low power nodes. 6 low power nodes with 8 dB range extension. 91

92

Chapter 9. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations - Multiple low power nodes

9.1.2

System parameters

The system parameters are the same as in chapter 5.

9.1.3

Trac model

The trac model is the same as in chapter 6. Simulation time is 100 seconds during which 1327 UEs was created, i.e. 13.27 UEs / second.

9.1.4

User distribution

In table 9.1 we see the distribution of UEs between the macro and low power node layer. The number of UEs which connects to the low power nodes increases linearly with increased number of low power nodes both with and without range extension. The macro PRB utilization follows from the number of UEs absorbed by the low power nodes. As the transmit power of the base stations is higher the PRB utilization is lower in downlink compared to uplink. Reference case

2 LPN RE

4 LPN RE

UEs connected to LPN Macro uplink PRB utilization Macro downlink PRB utilization

96 % 93 %

6% 95 % 91 %

16 % 92 % 82 %

12 % 94 % 87 %

4 LPN

32 % 81 % 60 %

18 % 91 % 80 %

45 % 63 % 40 %

Table 9.1: User distributions and macro PRB utilization.

9.2
9.2.1

Results
Cell Throughput

The cell throughput is found in gure 9.1. Naturally the macro cell throughput decreases as more low power nodes are deployed which will ooad the macro eNBs. The throughput per low power node does not depend on the number of low power node, rather the size of the low power node cells. Without range extension the low power nodes have a throughput of around 0.3 Mbps, with range extension the low power node cell throughput is around 0.8 Mbps. When more low power nodes are added the macro cell area throughput naturally increases. In the case with 6 low power nodes and range extension all oered trac is served.

6 LPN RE

2 LPN

6 LPN

9.2. Results
740000 0 800000 0 880000 0 860000 0 970000 0 910000 0 990000 0

93
790000 0 860000 0 920000 0 920000 0 970000 0 950000 0 100000 00

10 9 8 Throughput (bps) 7 6 5 4 3

x 10

Uplink Cell Throughput Averages

10 9 8 Throughput (bps) 7 6 5 4 3

x 10

Downlink Cell Throughput Averages

800000 0 760000 0 790000 0 640000 0 760000 0 520000 0

750000 0 720000 0 730000 0 630000 0 720000 0 510000 0

280000 810000 320000 850000 310000 800000

1
0

1 0
0

270000 790000 320000 820000 320000 800000

Ref 2 LPN 2 LPN RE 4 LPN 4 LPN RE 6 LPN 6 LPN RE

0

Ref 2 LPN 2 LPN RE 4 LPN 4 LPN RE 6 LPN 6 LPN RE

0

Low power node

Macro

Macro cell area

Low power node

Macro

Macro cell area

(a) Uplink

(b) Downlink

Figure 9.1: Average cell throughput per cell.

The spectral eciency can be calculated from the macro cell area throughput and the bandwidth using equation 9.1. Figure 9.2a and 9.2b shows the spectral eciency as a function of the number of low power nodes and the results is quantied in table 9.2. macro cell area throughput (bit/s/Hz/cell) available bandwidth Reference case

Spectral ef f iciency =

(9.1)

2 LPN RE

4 LPN RE

Uplink spectral eciency Downlink spectral eciency

0.74 0.79

0.8 0.86

0.88 0.92

0.86 0.92

0.97 0.97

0.91 0.95

0.99 1

Table 9.2: Spectral eciency vs. number of low power nodes per macro cell area.

9.2.2

Interference

The uplink interference is seen in gure 9.3. Downlink interference was not possible to obtain. Low power nodes In earlier studies it was seen that the strongest interference to the low power nodes comes from the surrounding macro UEs. We can here see that the interference decreases as more low power nodes are deployed. We can conclude that

6 LPN RE

2 LPN

6 LPN

4 LPN

94

Chapter 9. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations - Multiple low power nodes

Uplink spectral efficiency 1 Spectral efficiency (bit/s/Hz/cell) 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0 1 No RE 8 dB RE 2 3 4 5 Number of low power nodes 6 Spectral efficiency (bit/s/Hz/cell) 1 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0

Downlink spectral efficiency

No RE 8 dB RE 1 2 3 4 5 Number of low power nodes 6

(a) Uplink

(b) Downlink

Figure 9.2: Spectral eciency vs. number of low power nodes per macro cell area.
Interference Received by Base Stations Averages
91.6 92.1

90

Interference (dBm)

100

110

97.2 97.4 98.3 97.8 101 98.7 103

120

130

Low power nodes

Macro nodes

(a) Uplink

Figure 9.3: Time average uplink interference per PRB per cell.

the inter-low power node interference will not be a problem in heterogeneous networks. In chapter 8 we saw that adding an oset to the low power nodes in the cell association algorithm will drastically reduce uplink interference. This is also seen in these simulations.

Macro eNBs The interference to macro eNBs comes, as earlier discussed, from neighboring cells, especially from their edge UEs. Having the low power nodes absorb UEs will reduce the interference to the macro base stations. Therefore the interference to the macro base stations is reduced when deploying more low power nodes and when osets are added.

97.2 93 97.1 92.9 99.3 93.8 102

96.6

99

102

93.2

Ref 2 LPN 2 LPN RE 4 LPN 4 LPN RE 6 LPN 6 LPN RE

All nodes

9.2. Results

95

9.2.3

SINR

The SINR depends on the interference and the received signal power. As the fading has been removed in these simulations the received signal power depends on the distance from the UEs to the serving eNB. Averages The average SINR is seen in gure 9.4. Uplink Without range extension the low power node SINR is stable around 13 dB as more low power nodes are deployed. It was earlier seen that the uplink interference to the low power nodes was reduced when adding osets. Even though the interference is reduced the low power node uplink SINR is reduced with 3 dB to 1 dB when the range is extended due to higher path loss. For the macro UEs the average path loss is xed regardless of the number of low power nodes or range extension. The average SINR therefore follows from the interference and is increased 0.1 dB to 0.6 dB without range extension and 0.3 dB to 1.8 dB with 8 dB range extension. Overall, a gain in uplink SINR is achieved both by using range extension and adding low power nodes. Downlink Also in downlink the low power node SINR is stable as more low power nodes are deployed without range extension. As earlier seen the downlink SINR for the UEs in the range extended region of the low power nodes is low due to a weak link to the low power node and interference from the macro eNB. The average low power node downlink SINR is reduced by 7.5 dB, 4.7 dB and 1.9 dB with 2, 4 and 6 low power nodes per macro cell area. As in uplink, the downlink macro SINR follows from the interference. The macro UEs which gets the strongest interference are those on the edge of the macro cell which gets interference from the neighboring macro base station. When the macro PRB utilization is reduced so is the interference and the SINR is increased at the same time. The macro downlink SINR gain is 0.3 dB, 0.7 dB and 1.5 dB without range extension and 1.2 dB, 3.2 dB and 7.2 dB with 8 dB range extension. Low power node UEs Uplink In gure 9.5a we see the low power node UE SINR in uplink. Even though the interference is reduced when the range is extended the SINR is decreasing in all congurations due to higher average path loss. Adding low power nodes reduced the interference as well but the average path loss from the low power nodes to their UEs remains unchanged which gives higher SINR when more low power nodes are deployed. Downlink The low power node SINR in downlink, gure 9.5b, is not changing when adding low power nodes. It will, however, decrease when extending the range of the low power nodes because the UEs in the range extended region is

96

Chapter 9. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations - Multiple low power nodes

Uplink UE SINR Averages

18 16 14 16

Downlink UE SINR Averages

13 12

13

13

14

10

SINR (dB)

9.2 8.7

SINR (dB)

7.1 7.2 7.4 7.3 8.1 7.7 8.9

9.4

9.8

7.1 7.5 7.9 8

8 6 4 2

8 6 4 2 0

Ref 2 LPN 2 LPN RE 4 LPN 4 LPN RE 6 LPN 6 LPN RE

7.8 8.1 9 8.5

7.9

9.3

10

Low power node UEs

Macro UEs

All UEs

Low power node UEs

1.9

4.7

Macro UEs

(a) Uplink

(b) Downlink

Figure 9.4: Average SINR per UE.

forced to connect to the low power node even though they have better downlink conditions from the macro eNB. This eect was described in chapter 8. Interesting to see is that the SINR problem for the UEs in the range extended region is reduced when more low power nodes are deployed, this due to lower interference when the macro PRB utilization is reduced.
Uplink UE SINR Low power node UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 5 0 5 10 SINR (dB) 15 20 25 CDF 2 LPN 2 LPN RE 4 LPN 4 LPN RE 6 LPN 6 LPN RE 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 20 10 0 10 20 SINR (dB) 30 40 50 2 LPN 2 LPN RE 4 LPN 4 LPN RE 6 LPN 6 LPN RE Downlink UE SINR Low power node UEs

(a) Uplink

(b) Downlink

Figure 9.5: CDF - average low power node UE SINR.

Macro UEs Uplink Figure 9.6a shows the CDF for the macro SINR in uplink. There are two eects which aects the uplink macro SINR. First, the macro UEs gets higher SINR due to a reduction of interference as the macro PRB utilization is reduced when low power nodes absorb UEs. The other eect is that the UEs which are absorbed by the low power nodes will disappear from this CDF and since the low power nodes mostly absorbs low SINR UEs there is an apparent gain in SINR in the lower percentiles.

7.8 8.2 7.8 8.6 9.3 9.4

Ref 2 LPN 2 LPN RE 4 LPN 4 LPN RE 6 LPN 6 LPN RE
All UEs

9.4

10

10

11

12

12

12

12

15

9.2. Results

97

Downlink Figure 9.6b shows the CDF for the macro UE SINR in downlink. The path loss is unchanged for the dierent congurations and the CDFs follow from the interference. We see that the interference is reduced when low power nodes ooads the macro layer due to lower macro PRB utilization.

Uplink UE SINR Macro UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 5 0 5 10 SINR (dB) 15 20 Ref 2 LPN 2 LPN RE 4 LPN 4 LPN RE 6 LPN 6 LPN RE CDF 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 10 0

Downlink UE SINR Macro UEs Ref 2 LPN 2 LPN RE 4 LPN 4 LPN RE 6 LPN 6 LPN RE

10

20 30 SINR (dB)

40

50

60

(a) Uplink

(b) Downlink

Figure 9.6: CDF - average macro UE SINR.

9.2.4

UE Throughput

Low power node UEs A CDF for the low power node UE throughput is seen in gure 9.7. Uplink In gure 9.7a we see the uplink low power node UE throughput. The throughput depends on the SINR and the available bandwidth resources. Without range extension the number of available PRB per UE in the low power nodes is high as well as the SINR. When the range of the low power nodes is extended there will be fewer available PRBs per UE as well as lower uplink SINR, especially with 2 and 4 low power nodes per macro cell area. The lower SINR together with fewer available PRBs per low power node UE is the reason for the lower low power node UE throughput when the range is extended. The average UE throughput is 8.1, 7.9 and 8.0 Mbps and the reduction is 12 %, 6 % and 4 % due to the 8 dB range extension with 2, 4 and 6 low power nodes per macro cell area respectively. Downlink In downlink we also see the eects of the SINR reduction when adding the oset, see gure 9.7b. The downlink SINR will decrease drastically when the range of the low power nodes is extended. The reduction of low power node uplink UE throughput due to range extension is 68 %, 44 % and 23 % with 2, 4 and 6 low power nodes per macro cell area. Macro UEs A CDF for the Macro UE throughput is seen in gure 9.8.

98

Chapter 9. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations - Multiple low power nodes

UE throughput Low power node UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Throughput (bps) 10 2 LPN 2 LPN RE 4 LPN 4 LPN RE 6 LPN 6 LPN RE 12 14 x 10
6

UE downlink throughput Low power node UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Throughput (bps) 10 2 LPN 2 LPN RE 4 LPN 4 LPN RE 6 LPN 6 LPN RE 12 14 x 10
6

(a) Uplink

(b) Downlink

Figure 9.7: CDF - average low power node UE throughput.

Uplink In the reference case the macro cell is heavy loaded which is also reected in the uplink macro UE throughput. When low power nodes are added the macro cell will be ooaded and macro UE throughput will increase. The increase in macro UE throughput depends on how many UEs the low power nodes absorbs. When the range of the low power nodes is increased the number of absorbed UEs increase and so will the number of available PRBs per macro UE resulting in higher macro uplink UE throughput.

Downlink Also in downlink the macro UE throughput, gure 9.8b, depends on the ooading of the macro cells and the same reasoning applies in downlink as for uplink.

UE throughput Macro UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Throughput (bps) 10 Ref 2 LPN 2 LPN RE 4 LPN 4 LPN RE 6 LPN 6 LPN RE 12 14 x 10
6

UE downlink throughput Macro UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Throughput (bps) 10 Ref 2 LPN 2 LPN RE 4 LPN 4 LPN RE 6 LPN 6 LPN RE 12 14 x 10
6

(a) Uplink

(b) Downlink

Figure 9.8: CDF - average macro UE throughput.

9.3. Summary All UEs

99

A CDF for the UE throughput including all UEs in the system is seen in gure 9.9. When more low power nodes are added the system gets more resources and the UE throughput increases. To make best use of the added resources the load should be uniformly distributed between the nodes which we have seen range extension can be a tool in achieving. Even though range extension created SINR problems for UEs in the range extended region of the low power nodes the system as a whole benets both from the 8 dB oset and the added low power nodes. In table 9.3 the gain in the ftieth percentile is quantied. Interesting to see is that the gain in UE throughput per low power node increases as more low power nodes are deployed both without and without range extension. Also worth noting is that, when comparing the dashed green curve with the solid red curve, is that most UEs are better of in a system with two range extended low power nodes than a system with four low power nodes without range extension.

UE throughput All UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Throughput (bps) 10 Ref 2 LPN 2 LPN RE 4 LPN 4 LPN RE 6 LPN 6 LPN RE 12 14 x 10
6

UE downlink throughput All UEs 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 CDF 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 4 6 8 Throughput (bps) 10 Ref 2 LPN 2 LPN RE 4 LPN 4 LPN RE 6 LPN 6 LPN RE 12 14 x 10
6

(a) Uplink

(b) Downlink

Figure 9.9: CDF - average UE throughput including all UEs.

9.3

Summary

In table 9.4 the gains in dierent congurations compared to the reference case is summarized.

9.4

Conclusions

The system was beneting from adding low power nodes. Interference between low power nodes has been shown not to be a problem. The major interference arises when the macro UEs are communicating with the macro eNB. By ofoading the macro cells the interference decreases both to low power nodes and macro nodes. Range extension will make the low power nodes absorb more UEs which will ooad the macro cell but at the same time range extension creates SINR

100

Chapter 9. Analysis of 3GPP system configurations - Multiple low power nodes 4 LPN RE 6 LPN RE 957 % 159 % 900 % 150 %
+34 % +27 % -4.8 dB +2.9 dB +4.2 dB +560 % +1230 % +420 % +1470 %

2 LPN RE

2 LPN

4 LPN

Uplink UE throughput gain Uplink UE throughput gain per LPN Downlink UE throughput gain Downlink UE throughput gain per LPN

34 % 17 % 45 % 22 %

145 % 73 % 204 % 102 %

89 % 22 % 161 % 40 %

504 % 126 % 552 % 138 %

183 % 31 % 320 % 53 %

Table 9.3: UE throughput gain and UE throughput gain per low power node. Measured on the ftieth percentile.

2 LPN RE

6 LPN

Avg. uplink cellthroughput Avg. downlink cell throughput Uplink interference Avg. uplink SINR Avg. downlink SINR Avg. uplink UE throughput 5 % uplink UE throughput Avg. downlink UE throughput 5 % downlink throughput

+8.1 % +8.9 % +4.2 dB +0.4 dB -0.4 dB +65 % +17 % +57 % +35 %

+19 % +16 % -0.1 dB +0.7 dB +0 dB +180 % +92 % +120 % +165 %

+16 % +16 % +4.3 dB +0.9 dB +0.8 dB +135 % +50 % +115 % +86 %

+32 % +23 % -2.1 dB +2.1 dB +1.5 dB +380 % +530 % +280 % +690 %

+23 % +20 % +3.4 dB +1.6 dB +1.6 dB +220 % +160 % +190 % +240 %

Table 9.4: Gains from dierent number of low power nodes without and with 8 dB range extension compared to the reference case.

problems for UEs in the range extended region of the low power nodes, especially in downlink. Those UEs received a weak signal from the low power nodes and the interference was strong. By reducing the number of macro UEs the macro PRB utilization was reduced with lower interference as a result and the SINR

6 LPN RE

4 LPN RE

2 LPN

4 LPN

6 LPN

9.4. Conclusions

101

problem became smaller. Adding low power nodes will not only remove interference it will naturally also increase the cell throughput and spectral eciency in the macro cell area due to more bandwidth resources. The UE throughput was seen to increase as more low power nodes were deployed and the UE throughput gain per low power node also increased as more low power nodes were added. In case of two low power nodes they gave a UE throughput gain of 17 % and 22 % each in uplink and downlink respectively. The corresponding numbers for a system with six low power nodes per macro cell was 31 % and 53 %.

Chapter 10

Conclusions, proposal and future work

10.1 Conclusions

In this report heterogeneous deployment has been studied in LTE-Advanced. Low power nodes have been deployed to enhance the performance of the system. A set of studies has been carried out to see in which situations problems arises. The main conclusions from the studies are summarized here. Misplacement study First, in chapter 5, it was investigated how a misplacement of the low power nodes aected the performance. The purpose of the study was to see how much the results seen in simulations with ideal deployment deviated from more realistic situations where the low power nodes have a random error in their deployment. It was found that the dierence between ideal deployment and random deployment depended on the size of the low power node cells. If the range of the low power node cells is extended misplacement will not aect the system performance signicantly. Without range extension a 3.5 % dierence between ideal and random low power node deployment was seen which could be considered low. The results obtained from simulations with ideal low power node deployment therefore also apply to more realistic deployments too. Analysis of 3GPP system congurations In chapter 6 conguration 1, 4a and 4b from [9] was compared to the case with only macro base stations. In all congurations the low power nodes brings a gain to the system compared to the macro-only case. The SINR levels increases and so does the UE throughput. The UEs which gets absorbed by the low power nodes naturally gets high throughput and the UEs who remains connected to the macro eNBs will also get higher throughput since they get higher SINR due to less interference and more available bandwidth resources. A higher gain was observed in conguration 4b compared to the other congurations. This because the gain is related to the number of UEs the low power nodes absorbs and there are more UEs absorbed by the low power nodes 103

104

Chapter 10. Conclusions, proposal and future work

in conguration 4b as the UEs are clustered. In conguration 1 only 6 % of the UEs connected to the low power nodes and the gain was therefore small. Even though the low power nodes received strong interference from the surrounding macro UEs the low power node SINR was still higher than the macro SINR since the low path loss was compensating for the increased interference. The macro eNB gets less interference when more UEs get absorbed by the low power nodes due to lower macro PRB utilization. Analysis of 3GPP system congurations - Low load In chapter 7 conguration 1 was further analyzed. It was seen in chapter 6 that the gain from deploying low power nodes in a system with uniform UE distribution was low since the low power nodes only absorbed 6 % of the UEs. The gain in cell throughput was 8 % and 9 % in uplink and downlink respectively while the gain in average UE throughput was 63 % and 57 %. The gain in UE throughput was high because the absorbed UEs had a very high throughput which increased the average UE throughput. The same systems were simulated with a low load trac model as well and then no gain in cell throughput was seen, this because a system that has a low load and serves all oered trac can not gain in macro cell area throughput. Even though the cell throughput was not increasing there was a gain in average UE throughput of 18 % and 11 % in uplink and downlink respectively. Again this gain mostly comes from the few UEs which get absorbed by the low power nodes while the macro UEs which do not get absorbed do experience a large gain. Analysis of 3GPP system congurations - Range extension In the study in chapter 8 the range of the low power nodes was extended to further increase the gain brought by the low power nodes. An RSRP oset of 8 dB was used which made the low power nodes absorb more UEs. It was seen that the more the UEs cluster around the low power nodes the higher gain range extension gives. When the range of the low power nodes is extended the interference was reduced. The interference reduction depended on the number of UEs the low power nodes absorbed. At the same time range extension forces UEs in the range extended region to connect to a low power node even though they have better downlink conditions to the macro base station. These UEs got very low downlink SINR due to a weak downlink and high interference. In conguration 1 and 4 10 % and 7 % of the UEs had an SINR below zero respectively, while in conguration 4b the interference was reduced enough to overcome the weak downlink and the UEs in the range extended region got higher SINR from the range extension. Even though the UEs in the range extended region of the low power nodes had very low SINR, looking the system as a whole it performed better with range extension in all congurations. Analysis of 3GPP system congurations - Multiple low power nodes In the earlier studies it was seen that adding two low power nodes to the system was increasing the performance of the system. In chapter 9 it was seen how the

10.2. Proposal

105

system performance was aected when adding more low power nodes. As seen in chapter 8 that the UEs in the range extended region of the low power nodes had downlink SINR problems, especially when the UEs were uniformly distributed. In this study we saw that this problem got smaller when the more low power nodes was added due to lower macro PRB utilization. Adding low power nodes increased the UE throughput, and interesting to see was that the UE throughput gain per low power node was higher the more low power nodes there were. Interference between low power nodes was not seen to be a problem.

10.2

Proposal

As seen in chapter 8 there is a need to protect the UEs in the range extended region of the low power node cells. This can be done, for example, with InterCell Interference Coordination (ICIC). ICIC is a technique where the cells are scheduling their UEs in a way so that interference is mitigated. There are dierent ways of doing this. The principle is to put restriction in the scheduling so that neighboring cells do not schedule UEs to collide in time and frequency and therefore will not interfere each other. For an ICIC-scheme to bring gain to the system the avoidance of colliding UEs has to compensate for the lower trunking eciency in the system. If two cells are scheduling UEs in the same PRBs they will collide and get lower SINR which forces them to use a lower order modulation scheme and therefore lower throughput. This should be compared to the case when restrictions are put on the UEs so that they can only use a subset of the resources. If the UEs get higher throughput by using fewer PRBs with less interference, compared to more PRBs with higher interference, the collision should be avoided. Figure 10.1 shows an example of this. In gure 10.1a no restriction is made on the scheduling and the transmissions in cell 1 and 2 will collide. If an ICIC scheme is used the transmissions can be separated so that no collision will occur, see gure 10.1b. In the case of collision a lower throughput per PRB will be achieved but the cells will have more PRBs to schedule their UEs on.

10.2.1

Existing ICIC schemes

Below some existing ICIC-schemes are presented which separates the UEs in frequency. There are also ICIC schemes which separate UEs in time but will not be discussed here. Static reuse In static reuse the frequency bandwidth is divided in to a number of nonoverlapping bands. Each cell is assigned one of these bands. The assignment of the bands is done in a way so that neighboring cells are not using the same bands. As in gure 10.2 the red cells can only use the red part of the bandwidth.

10.2.2

Fractional Frequency Reuse

As an alternative to static reuse, in Fractional Frequency Reuse (FFR) dierent areas of the system uses dierent parts of the bandwidth. Scheduling collisions

106

Chapter 10. Conclusions, proposal and future work

Cell 1

PRB 1

Cell 2 PRB 2 PRB 1

PRB 2

(a) No ICIC is used and transmissions will collide in frequency.

Cell 1

PRB 1

Cell 2 PRB 2 PRB 1

PRB 2

(b) ICIC is used and collisions will be avoided.

Figure 10.1: Performance evaluation of ICIC schemes. that would cause heavy interference can be avoided. One FFR setup is shown in gure 10.3. UEs in the center of a cell can use the whole spectrum while edge UEs only can use part of the spectrum. The interference from and to edge UEs is in general strongest. Having dierent cells schedule their edge UEs on dierent frequencies reduces interference. Allocation order based schemes In this class of ICIC schemes the scheduler is scheduling the UEs from a starting PRB index. Dierent cells start scheduling from dierent PRB indexes. This scheme does not have any hard restriction on PRB usage as the static reuse scheme has. If a base station needs to use all PRBs it will simply continue the allocation even if that means it will step over another cells oset. An illustration of this scheme is found in gure 10.4. Randomized scheme This is similar to the allocation order based schemes. The dierence is that the oset used by each base station is chosen autonomously in a random manner by each base station. The base stations will choose a new random oset with

10.2. Proposal

107

Figure 10.2: Static reuse ICIC scheme.

Figure 10.3: Fractional Frequency Reuse ICIC scheme. a given time interval. The starting osets will then change over time and the interference will therefore be averaged over time. The randomized selection of the starting osets will take away the need for the base stations to communicate with each other.

108

Chapter 10. Conclusions, proposal and future work

#1

#2

#3

Figure 10.4: Allocation order based ICIC scheme. Schemes based on X2-signalling The connection between the eNBs can be used for signaling to counter interference. 3GPP have proposed three messages that can be sent. [13] [14] Uplink High Interference Indication (HII) is a message sent between eNBs over the X2 interface to help them to avoid uplink collisions. The HII message is a bitmap representing on which PRBs high interference users are planned to be scheduled on. High interference users are generally cell edge UEs. The action which the receiving eNB is going to take is not standardized but it is benecial if it is avoiding to schedule cell edge users on the PRBs which it knows a neighboring cell is going to schedule an edge user on. Each eNB is measuring the interference plus noise on each PRB and sending them to the neighboring eNBs in a message called Uplink Overload Indication (OI). This info can be used for power control so as the interference could be lowered in the uplink. Relative Narrowband Downlink TX Power (RNTP) is a message containing an estimate of the transmission power a eNB is going to use in coming PRBs. This message is sent to the neighboring eNBs. The 3GPP standard has not specied what actions the receiving eNBs should take. One possibility could be to adjust the reuse patterns within the system dynamically where the eNBs are working together to minimize the number of collisions in downlink.

10.2.3

Proposed scheme

We have seen that the UEs in the range extended region of the low power nodes get very low downlink SINR in some situations due to weak downlink conditions to the low power node and strong interference from the macro node, which is a problem. To counter this problem the UEs in the range extended region can be separated in frequency from the macro UEs by aid of an FFR-scheme which will be proposed in this section. Through this report the low power nodes have operated in Open Accessmode (OA) where all UEs can connect to all base stations, as opposed to Close

10.2. Proposal

109

Subscriber Group-mode (CSG) where UEs need to be a member of a CSG in order to connect to it. The details of the proposed scheme will depend on which mode the low power nodes operate in.

Open Access mode The proposed FFR scheme is seen in gure 10.5. The UEs in the range extended region (blue region) get scheduled on blue resources and edge macro UEs (green region) are scheduled on the green resources. UEs in the center of the macro and low power node cells can use the whole bandwidth. Alternatively the macro eNB can schedule UEs on resources in the blue region but with reduced transmit power.

Center macro/LPN Edge macro Edge LPN

Figure 10.5: FFR scheme protecting UEs in range extended region of OA low power node cells.

Closed Subscriber Group mode If the low power nodes operate in CSG-mode there might be situations when non CSG members are located within the low power node cell. These UEs are expected to give very strong interference to the low power node and should be separated in frequency from the UEs in the CSG. To achieve this, the previous scheme can be altered as in Figure 11 6. The UEs in the low power nodes cells which are not members of the CSG can only be assigned resources in the yellow region. They are separated from the CSG UEs at the same time as the LPN edge UEs are separated from the edge UEs of the macro cell.

110

Chapter 10. Conclusions, proposal and future work

Center macro Edge macro CSG Center LPN CSG Edge LPN Non-CSG LPN

Figure 10.6: FFR scheme protecting UEs in range extended region of CSG low power node cells. Details of the scheme There is a need to investigate appropriate parameters of this scheme such as the number of PRBs in each bandwidth region, the size of the center/edge regions etc. This is a topic of a future study.

10.3

Proposed further studies

To further mitigate interference the following is an alternative Coordinated Scheduling (CS) scheme between macro and HeNBs that have potential to increase the uplink throughput. As discussed in chapter 4, a macro UE close to a low power node will create strong interference to the low power node UEs if they are scheduled on the same PRBs. To avoid that the UEs gets scheduled on the same resources ICIC could be used. ICIC algorithms can lower the interference but also reduces the trunking eciency. If the macro and low power eNB can communicate and perform CS, the resources can be used more eciently. CS requires low latency and high throughput connections between the involved base stations. HeNBs do not have such connections but instead are connected to the rest of the network over the internet. An internet connection is not reliable or fast enough to be used for CS. An alternative approach is introduced below. In this schedule the HeNB will not perform the scheduling of its UEs but will only receive their data. The

10.4. Alternative technology

111

macro eNB will perform the scheduling both in the macro cell and HeNB cell in the following manner: 1. The HeNB UE sends a resource request, not to the HeNB, but to the macro eNB. The HeNB will recognize that one of its UEs is transmitting a request and will expect a grant coming from the macro eNB. 2. The macro eNB will schedule the HeNB UE and send a transmission grant to the UE. The HeNB will overhear the grant and know with which transmission format and on which PRB the UE will transmit. 3. The UE will transmit the data to the HeNB while the macro eNB can cancel the UEs signal. There is expected to be gains by having the macro eNBs aware of on which PRBs the HeNB UEs will use and then avoid scheduling its own UEs in the same PRBs. At the same time the macro eNB will be aware of how the low power node UEs signals will look like and there is a possibility for the macro eNB to cancel out the interference from the HeNB UEs. A diculty with this scheme is that the HeNBs needs to receive the grant in the downlink where it at the same time will transmit to its UEs. Figure 10.7 shows this. The PRB with the grant is next to the PRBs which are used to downlink transmissions and to create hardware able to do this is challenging and expensive.
Power

Grant

Downlink data transmission

Frequency

Figure 10.7: Reception of transmission grant and downlink data transmission simultaneously.

10.4

Alternative technology

As a way of enhancing the performance of the cellular networks Home eNBs are proposed to be deployed. The Home eNBs are to be deployed by the users in, for example, their homes or in oces where there is a need for high throughput and good coverage. Many of todays UEs have, aside from the common cellular network connection, also Wi-Fi access. The Wi-Fi access can be used to enhance the performance in the same way as a Home eNB. There are a few drawbacks however.

112

Chapter 10. Conclusions, proposal and future work

When a UE is connected to a Home eNB it will have its own IP address while when connected to a Wi-Fi access point it will be behind a NAT which makes it hidden to the network outside the access point. The operator can then not authenticate the UE preventing it to access services in the cellular network. To counter this problem the software in the Wi-Fi access points can be modied so that the operators have control over it and have a separate connection to each of the connected UEs which would solve the authentication problem. Another drawback is that a handover between the cellular systems to Wi-Fi cannot be performed. This means that if a user is in their home and connected to the Wi-Fi access point the connections will terminate if the user moves out of reach of the access point. If connected to a Home eNB the user would seamlessly be handed over to the macro eNB if it looses connection to the Home eNB. There are several benets with the Wi-Fi approach compared to Home eNBs. First of all is the economical perspective. A Wi-Fi access point is today very cheap and they are already widely spread. Instead of buying a Home eNB owners of a Wi-Fi access point can simply update the software. It is also easier for a Wi-Fi access point to utilize services such as media servers and printers. Another benet with the Wi-Fi access points is the spectrum aspect. The spectrum used by Wi-Fi access points is unlicensed and the operators do not need to pay for the spectrum at the same time the UEs connected to Wi-Fi will not interfere with the UEs connected to the cellular network. A drawback from using unlicensed spectrum is that the operators have no control over the spectrum and no guarantees can be given to the users. That no guarantees can be given is also true for Home eNBs since the users are deploying them but since they will operate in spectrum that the operator owns the operator has a higher level of control.

Bibliography
[1] ITU-R. M.2134 requirements related to technical performance for imtadvanced radio interface(s). Technical report, ITU-R, 2008. [2] C.E. Shannon. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27:379423, 1948. [3] David Tse and Pramod Viswanath. Fundamentals of Wireless Communication. Cambridge University Press, 2004. [4] Erik Dahlman, Stefan Parkvall, Johan Skold, and Per Beming. 3G Evolution: HSPA and LTE for mobile broadband. Elsevier Ltd., rst edition, 2007. [5] T. Guess M.K. Varanasi. Optimum decision feedback multiuser equalization with successive decoding achieves the total capacity of the gaussian multiple-access channel. Technical report, Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers, 1997. [6] ITU-R. Report m.2135: Guidelines for evaluation of radio interface technologies for imt-advanced. Technical report, ITU-R, 2008. [7] 3GPP. Ts 36.101: 3rd generation partnership project; technical specication group radio access network; evolved universal terrestrial radio access (e-utra); user equipment (ue) radio transmission and reception. Technical report, 3GPP, 2010. [8] 3GPP. Ts 36.104: 3rd generation partnership project; technical specication group radio access network; evolved universal terrestrial radio access (e-utra); base station (bs) radio transmission and reception. Technical report, 3GPP, 2010. [9] 3GPP. Tr 36.814: 3rd generation partnership project, technical specication group radio access network, further advancements for e-utra physical layer aspects. Technical report, 3GPP, 2009. [10] Lingjia Liu, Jianzhong (Charlie) Zhang, Jae-Chon Yu, and Juho Lee. Intercell interference coordination through limited feedback. International Journal of Digital Multimedia Broadcasting, 2010:7, 2010. [11] 3GPP. Tr 25.820: 3rd generation partnership project; technical specication group radio access networks; 3g home nodeb study item technical report. Technical report, 3GPP, 2008. 113

114

Bibliography

[12] Ericsson and ST-Ericsson. R1-102619 ul power control in hotzone deployments. Technical report, 3GPP, 2010. [13] 3GPP. Ts 36.423 : 3rd generation partnership project, technical specication group radio access network, evolved universal terrestrial radio access network (e-utran), x2 application protocol (x2ap). Technical report, 3GPP, 2009. [14] Harri Holma and Antti Toskala. LTE for UMTS, OFDMA and SC-FDMA based Radio Access. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., rst edition, 2009.